Legal Technique and Logic Report

7/23/2019 Legal Technique and Logic Report

1/15


2/15

2004 BAR EXAMINATIONS

YES OR NO

QUESTION


3/15

ON HIS WAY HOME FROM OFFICE, ZZ

RODE IN A JEEPNEY. SUBSEQUENTLY,XX BOARDED THE SAME JEEPNEY.

UPON REACHING A SECLUDED SPOT IN

QC, XX PULLED OUT A GRENADE FROM

HIS BAG AND ANNOUNCED A HOLD-UP.

HE TOLD ZZ TO SURRENDER HISWATCH, WALLET AND CELLPHONE.

FEARING FOR HIS LIFE, ZZ JUMPED

OUT OF THE VEHICLE. BUT AS HE

FELL, HIS HEAD HIT THE PAVEMENT,

CAUSING HIS INSTANT DEATH.

IS XX LIABLE FOR ZZS DEATH?

EXPLAIN BRIEFLY. (5%)


4/15

XX IS LIABLE FOR ZZS DEATH BECAUSE

HIS ACTS OF PULLING OUT A GRENADE

AND ANNOUNCING A HOLD-UP, COUPLEDWITH A DEMAND FOR THE WATCH,

WALLET, AND CELLPHONE OF ZZ IS

FELONIOUS, AND SUCH FELONIOUS ACT

WAS THE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF ZZS

JUMPING OUT OF THE JEEPNEY,RESULTING IN THE LATTERS DEATH.

YES.

Suggested Answer:


5/15

STATED OTHERWISE, THE

DEATH OF ZZ WAS THE DIRECT,

NATURAL AND LOGICAL

CONSEQUENCE OF XXSFELONIOUS ACT WHICH

CREATED AN IMMEDIATE

SENSE OF DANGER IN THE

MIND OF ZZ WHO TRIED TOAVOID SUCH DANGER BY

JUMPING OUT OF THE

JEEPNEY (PEOPLE V. APRA, 27

SCRA 1037 [1969]).


6/15

YES. XX is liable for ZZs death

Direct answer: Affirmation

Because his acts of pulling out agrenade and announcing a hold-up,coupled with a deand for the watch,wallet, and cellphone of ZZ is felonious!

Justification of

the direct answer

to the question

Assertion

Immediate support

Meat of the

answer


7/15

!and such felonious act was thepro"iate cause of ZZs #uping outof the #eepne$, resulting in thelatters death.

Explaining with brevitysing of technical terms

Ability of examinee to write downbasic laws


8/15

Stated otherwise,

!the death of ZZ was the direct,natural and logical conse%uence ofXXs felonious act!

!roximate "ause

!which created an iediatesense of danger in the ind of ZZ

who tried to a&oid such danger b$#uping out of the #eepne$ !

#ogical relationship

Cause and Efect


9/15

!'(eople &. )pra, *+ S)/0+ 123245.

$pecific citations

#egal !rovisions "ase #aws


10/15

TRUE OR FALSE

QUESTION

2009 BAR EXAMINATIONS


11/15

A PERSON WHO, ON THE OCCASION

OF ROBBERY, KILLS A BYSTANDER

BY ACCIDENT IS LIABLE FOR TWO

SEPARATE CRIMES:

ROBBERY AND RECKLESS

IMPRUDENCE RESULTING

IN HOMICIDE.


12/15

ONLY ONE CRIME OF ROBBERY

WITH HOMICIDE IS CONSTITUTED

BECAUSE THE REVISED PENAL

CODE PUNISHES THE CRIME ASONLY ONE INDIVISIBLE OFFENSE

WHEN A KILLING, WHETHER

INTENTIONAL OR ACCIDENTAL,

WAS COMMITTED BY REASON ORON OCCASION OF A ROBBERY

(ART. 294[1], RPC; PEOPLE V.

MABASA, 65 PHIL. 658 [1938]).

FALSE.

Suggested Answer:


13/15

6)7SE.

Direct answer:

%egation

8nl$ one crie of robber$ with

hoicide is constituted!

Immediate

support&reasoning


14/15

!because the e&ised (enal odepunishes the crie as onl$ one

indi&isible o9ense when a :illing,whether intentional or accidental,was coitted b$ reason or onoccasion of a robber$!

Justifying

conclusion

!')rt. *2;14, (< (eople &.=abasa, 3> (hil. 3>? 120?45.

$pecific citations

LegalRule/Basis


15/15

PAY ATTENTION TO WHAT IS ASKED

BE RESPONSIVE TO THE QUESTION

ASKED AND BE DIRECT TO THE POINT

SUPPORT YOUR ANSWER

APPLY/CITE THE LAW

PROVIDE CITATIONS WHEN

YOU CAN

DONT GO FOR OVERWHELMING WORDS

Legal Technique and Logic Report

Documents