INFORMATION FOR RAPE (1998, 2000, 2003) Question No.

20: Prepare an Information for rape of a 14-year old girl committed by the common-law spouse of her mother warranting the imposition of the death penalty. Answer: REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES NATIONAL CAPITAL JUDICIAL REGION REGIONAL TRIAL COURT Branch I, Manila

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff, - versus MARTIN PARK, Defendant. x ---------------------------------------------- x CRIM. CASE NO. 102098 For: Rape INFORMATION

The undersigned Public Prosecutor for the City of Manila, hereby accuses MARTIN PARK of the crime of Rape committed as follows, to wit: That, on or about 10:00 p.m. of July 4, 2000, at his house in 26 Legaspi Street, Tondo, Manila, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said accused, by means of repeated blows to the stomach which rendered the victim unconscious, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, have carnal knowledge of Jasmine Bukid, who was then a minor child, 14 years of age, and daughter of Jamaica Bukid, the common law spouse of the accused. Contrary to law. Manila, September 23, 2000. LAWRENCE VILLEGAS Public Prosecutor December 31, 2000 IBP No. 61879; 1/2/2000; Manila PTR No. 112098; 2/2/2000; Manila Roll of Attorneys No. 12344 CERTIFICATION This is to certify that a preliminary investigation has been conducted in the above-entitled case, and that on the basis of the evidence presented there is reasonable ground to believe that the offense charged has been committed and the accused is probably guilty thereof. Manila, September 23, 2000. LAWRENCE VILLEGAS. Public Prosecutor JURAT

INFORMATION FOR FRUSTRATED MURDER (Caption) PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff, - versus MAMA MATAY, Accused. x --------------------------------------------- x INFORMATION The undersigned accuses MAMA MATAY of frustrated murder committed as follows: That on or about 21 August 2006, in Quezon City, the accused did then and there take a loaded .44 Caliber Magnum pistol, directly aim the same firearm at the person of VIC TIMA, an invalid septuagenarian, and, at point blank range, with intent to kill, discharge the firearm twice against the person of said Vic Tima, inflicting on said Vic Tima two (2) wounds on his chest and stomach, which wounds would have been fatal had not timely medical assistance been rendered to the said Vic Tima. CONTRARY TO LAW with the aggravating circumstances of Evident Premeditation, use of firearm and disregard of age. (Sgd.) ELLIOT NESS Assistant City Prosecutor PLUS: Certification of Preliminary Investigation or Inquest Jurat Criminal Case No. 00567 For: Frustrated Murder

CRIMINAL INFORMATION: HOMICIDE Question No. 1 Prepare a draft of a criminalinformation charging a person with the crime of homicide, complete with caption and title and required certification re preliminary investigation. Do not use real names but supply all facts needed. Answer: REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES NATIONAL CAPITAL JUDICIAL REGION REGIONAL TRIAL COURT MANILA PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff, - versus Boy Asunto, CRIM. CASE No. 147215 For: Homicide Accused. x ---------------------------------------------- x INFORMATION follows: That on or about August 12, 2001, San Juan, Manila within the jurisdiction of this court, the said accused, armed with a bladed weapon, with intent to kill, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault and stab one Artemio Co, thereby inflicting upon him a fatal wound which directly caused his death. Contrary to law. Manila, October 15 , 2001 . JOHN PASCUAL Provincial Fiscal WITNESSES: MARIANO BATUMBAKAL CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that a preliminary investigation was conducted in the above-entitled case, and there is prima facie evidence that the crime of Homicide has been committed and that the accused is probably guilty thereof. PATRICK SALONGA City Prosecutor Bail Recommended: None The undersigned Assistant City Prosecutor hereby accuses Boy Asunto of the crime of Homicide committed as

BLESILDA CRISTOBAL

CRIMINAL INFORMATION: BIGAMY (Caption) PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff, - versus PI KUTIN, Accused. x ---------------------------------------- x INFORMATION The Undersigned accuses PI KUTIN of the crime of Bigamy, committed as follows: That on or about 3 July 2006, in the City of Quezon and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said accused, being then legally married to BIL MOKO, and without such marriage having been legally dissolved and thus valid and existing, did wilfully, unlawfully and felicitously contract a second marriage with ASA WA in the City of Quezon. CONTRARY TO LAW. ELLIOT NESS Assistant City Prosecutor CERTIFICATE OF PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION I hereby certify that a preliminary investigation in this case was conducted by me in accordance with law; that I examined the Complainant and her witnesses; that there is reasonable ground to believe that the offense charged had been committed and that the accused is probably guilty thereof; that the accused was informed of the Complaint and of the evidence submitted against him and was given the opportunity to submit controverting evidence; and that the filing of this Information is with the prior authority and approval of the City Prosecutor. ELLIOT NESS Assistant City Prosecutor SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE ME this 9th day of August 2006 in Quezon City. AL CAPONE City Prosecutor Bail Recommended: P10,000.00 Criminal Case No. 00567 For: Bigamy

COMPLAINT AFFIDAVIT ORAL DEFAMATION Republic of the Philippines City of Makati ) ) s.s. COMPLAINT-AFFIDAVIT I, MA SELAN, of legal age, Filipino, with assistance of counsel, and [2] resident of 4 Privet Drive, Triple X Village, Makati, do hereby state under oath that: 1. I am a member of the Triple X Village Homeowners Association (Association) and was formerly a Director and Corporate Secretary of the Association. 2. I accuse and hereby charge MR. MA INGAY, residing at 5 Privet Drive, Triple X Village, Makati, of violating Article 358 of the Revised Penal Code (Slander and Oral Defamation), committed against me when he publicly, maliciously and deliberately uttered defamatory remarks against me during the Board Meeting of the Association on 27 January 2007. This is attested to by the following exchange that transpired between Mr. Ingay and the other members of the Board in attendance: (Quote Exchange) Attached as ANNEX A is a copy of the official transcript of the meeting. 3. Prior resort to the Barangay conciliation system proved fruitless as Mr. Ingay did not retract his remarks. Consequently, a Certification to File Action was issued by the Barangay Chairperson, a copy of which is attached as ANNEX B. 4. There is no other person named Ma Selan residing at Triple X Village nor is there any other person named Ma Selan who has acted as Board Member of the Association. Consequently, Mr. Ingays public and defamatory utterance was clearly a reference to me and to no other. 5. Mr. Ma Ingays remarks, calling me a swindler twice over, uttered in a public meeting are clearly insulting and defamatory as they malign me and attribute to me a criminal act, nature and predisposition. There is, moreover, no doubt that Mr. Ingays use of the word swindled was deliberate as his explanation and clarification a few utterances thereafter would show. Mr. Ingays remarks are also very serious as they cast aspersions on my reputation, character and very person before my peers and fellow homeowners. 6. Mr. Ingays remarks have injured my name, reputation and character before my neighbors and peers. While my name, reputation and character are incapable of pecuniary estimation as these are the result of a lifetimes effort to build a name, reputation and character that my children and their children can be proud to bear, Mr. Ingay cannot be allowed to simply go scot-free without bearing the consequences of his acts. For this reason, I am also holding Mr. Ma Ingay liable civilly for defaming me in the amount of One Million Pesos (P1,000,000.00) in nominal damages, Five Hundred Thousand Pesos (P500,000.00) in moral damages and Five Hundred Thousand Pesos (P500,000.00) in exemplary damages. TO THE TRUTH OF THE FOREGOING, I have signed this Complaint-Affidavit on 13 April 2007. (Sgd.) MA SELAN Complainant-Affiant SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE ME this 13th day of April 2007. (Sgd.) Investigating Prosecutor CERTIFICATION I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT I HAVE PERSONALLY EXAMINED THE AFFIANT AND AM SATISFIED THAT HE VOLUNTARILY EXECUTED AND UNDERSTOOD HIS AFFIDAVIT. (Sgd.) Investigating Prosecutor

COMPLAINT FOR EJECTMENT (1976, 1982, 1983, 1984, 1985, 1993, 1994, 1996, 1997, 2000) Question No. 18: The lease contract between Tom Cruise and Katie Holmes having expired as of June 30, 2004, Tom Cruise, the lessor, retained your services as a lawyer to file the appropriate legal action against Katie Holmes, the lessee, for failure of the latter to vacate the leased premises despite repeated demands. Prepare the complaint for ejectment. Answer: REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES NATIONAL CAPITAL JUDICIAL REGION METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT Branch III, Quezon City TOM CRUISE, Plaintiff, - versus KATIE HOLMES, Defendant. x ----------------------------------x Civil Case No. 61879 For: Ejectment

COMPLAINT COMES NOW, the Plaintiff in the above-entitled case, through counsel, and to this Honorable Court alleges: 1. That plaintiff is of age, married and residing at No. 80 Agno Street, Quezon City, while defendant is likewise of age, married and residing at No. 100 Agno Street, Quezon City, where he may be served with summons; 2. That plaintiff is the owner of a semi-concrete bungalow located at No. 100 Agno Street, Quezon City; 3. That on June 10, 2001, plaintiff leased the said bungalow to the defendant for the next three (3) years at a monthly rental of P1,000.00, payable within the first five days of each month, and that the lease contract thereon is hereto attached as Annex A; 4. That since June 11, 2004, the lease contract had already expired and, despite repeated demands, defendant had refused to vacate the premises and continues to occupy the same. 5. That written demand (Annex B hereof) to vacate and pay rentals in arrears was sent to and received by defendant but despite said demand, he failed to vacate the same or pay said rentals. WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed that judgment be rendered against the defendant ordering her: 1. To vacate the premises; 2. To pay the monthly sum of P1,000.00 beginning on June 11, 2004, with interest thereon at the legal rate until fully paid, until the defendant vacates said premises; 3. To pay the sum of P2,000.00 as litigation expenses and attorneys fees. Quezon City, July 7, 1983. LAWRENCE VILLEGAS Attorney for the Plaintiff XYZ Building, Quezon City IBP No. 12345; 1/3/1983; Quezon City PTR No.61879; 2/2/1983; Quezon City Roll of Attorneys No. 12344 VERIFICATION CERTIFICATION OF NON-FORUM SHOPPING JURAT

COMPLAINT FOR REPLEVIN Republic of the Philippines National Capital Judicial Region REGIONAL TRIAL COURT Branch 101, Makati City HURTS RENT-A-CAR, represented by AKIN NAYAN, Plaintiff, Civil Case No. 000088 - versus YOKO NGA, Defendant. x----------------------------------- x COMPLAINT Plaintiff, by counsel, respectfully states that: 1. Plaintiff is the general manager of Hurts Rent-A-Car with offices at Makati City; defendant is a Tongan, temporarily residing at Bayview Hotel, Roxas Boulevard, Manila. 2. Hurts Rent-A-Car is the registered owner of a Honda CRV with license plate number XLV-675, which defendant, on 3 March 2005, rented from plaintiff for a period of one (1) week. 3. On 15 March 2005, plaintiff demanded from defendant the return of the car but defendant failed and refused to do so. 4. The car has not been taken for a tax assessment or a fine pursuant to law nor has it been seized on execution or attachment. Its present value is approximately Nine Hundred Thousand Pesos (P900,000.00). 5. Plaintiff is ready, willing and able to give bond in defendants name in double the value of the property for the return of the property to defendant should that be adjudged or for the payment of such sum that defendant may recover from plaintiff in this action. WHEREFORE, plaintiff respectfully prays that the writ of replevin issue directing the Sheriff or any other authorized officer to take possession of the car and dispose of it in accordance with the Rules of Court and, after hearing, judgment be rendered declaring plaintiff to be lawfully entitled to the possession of the car and sentencing defendant to pay its value. Quezon City for Makati City; 13 April 2007. (Sgd.) MITCH MCDEERE Counsel for the Plaintiff [Address] PLUS: Verification and Certification against Forum Shopping

MOTION TO QUASH (1976, 1986, 1988, 1990) Question No. 13: The prosecutor charged Anthony Tabbios with violating a city ordinance before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila, Branch 47. Anthony Tabbioss lawyer, Atty. Lawrence Quicho, seeks to quash the information on the ground that the RTC has no jurisdiction over the offense charged. Prepare a motion to quash. Answer: REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES NATIONAL CAPITAL JUDICIAL REGION REGIONAL TRIAL COURT Branch 47, Manila PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff, - versusAnthony Tabbios, Defendant. x ----------------------------------------------- x

Criminal Case No. 102078 Violation of City Ordinance No. 5 MOTION TO QUASH

COMES NOW the Accused, through undersigned counsel, and to this Honorable Court, respectfully moves to quash the information filed by the Fiscal of Manila on the ground that: THIS HONORABLE COURT HAS NO JURISDICTION OF THE CASE. ARGUMENT City Ordinance No. 5 imposes a maximum penalty of six (6) months imprisonment and P1,000.00 fine which is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the City Court of Manila. Hence, this Court has no jurisdiction over the instant case. WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed that the information be quashed and the Accused be released immediately from detention. Manila, Philippines, October 1, 1990 LAWRENCE QUICHO Counsel for the Accused IBP No. 61879; 1/2/1990; Manila PTR No. 112098; 2/2/1990; Manila Roll of Attorneys No. 12344 The Clerk of Court Regional Trial Court of Manila Branch 47 Please set the foregoing Motion to Quash for hearing on Friday, October 5, 1990 at 9:00 a.m. or as soon as counsel may be heard. RICHARD REYES Counsel for the Accused BP No. 61879; 1/2/1990; Manila PTR No. 112098; 2/2/1990; Manila Roll of Attorneys No. 12344 Copy Furnished: (3 days before hearing) City Prosecutor City Hall, Manila NOTICE OF HEARING

COMMON FORMS Combined Verification, Certification against Forum Shopping, and Statement of Material Dates VERIFICATION & CERTIFICATION AGAINST FORUM SHOPPING I, C.K. Hilfiger, of legal age, do hereby state that: I am the Chief Executive Office of Alis Di-yan Company and in such capacity, caused this Complaint to be prepared; I have received a copy of the [Order/Resolution/Decision] of the Court on 13 April 2007; I have read its contents and affirm that they are true and correct to the best of my own personal knowledge; I hereby certify that there is no other case commenced or pending before any court involving the same parties and the same issue and that, should I learn of such a case, I shall notify the court within five (5) days from my notice. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have signed this instrument on _____________. (Sgd.) C.K. HILFIGER PLUS:Jurat Request for and Notice of hearing REQUEST FOR & NOTICE OF HEARING THE BRANCH CLERK OF COURT Metropolitan Trial Court Quezon City, Branch 39 Please submit the foregoing Motion to the Court for its consideration and approval immediately upon receipt hereof and kindly include the same in the courts calendar for hearing on Friday, 13 April 2007 at 8:30 in the morning. ATTICUS FINCH 1 MockingBird Street Timog Avenue, Quezon City Please take notice that counsel has requested to be heard on Friday, 13 April 2007 at 8:30 in the morning. (Sgd.) MITCH MCDEERE Counsel for Defendant 2 The Firm Laguna Street, Quezon City Proof of personal service Copy furnished through personal service: Atty. Mitch McDeere Counsel for the Defendant 2 The Firm Laguna Street, Quezon City

Proof of service by registered mail (with Explanation for failure to serve personally) Copy furnished through registered mail: Atty. Mitch McDeere Counsel for the Defendant 2 The Firm Laguna Street, Quezon City Registry Receipt No. ________ Post Office ________________ Date _____________________ EXPLANATION The foregoing (designation of pleading, motion, etc.) and its attachment were served on Atty. Mitch McDeere by registered mail instead of personal service as counsel for petitioner only has one messenger and personal service would have resulted in the motion not being filed on time to the detriment of petitioner. (Sgd.) ATTICUS FINCH Republic of the Philippines City of _______________ ) ) s.s. AFFIDAVIT I, HARPER LEE, a messenger of Atty. Atticus Finch, with office address at __________________, after being duly sworn, deposes and states: That on ______________________, I served a copy of the following pleadings/papers by registered mail in accordance with Section 10, Rule 13 of the Rules of Court: Nature of Pleading/Paper ________________________ ________________________ in Case No. _________________ entitled ____________________ by depositing a copy in the post office in a sealed envelope, plainly addressed to (name of party or his/her attorney) at _______________ with postage fully paid, as evidenced by Registry Receipt No. _____________________ attached and with instructions to the post master to return the mail to sender after ten (10) days if undelivered. TO THE TRUTH OF THE FOREGOING, I have signed this Affidavit on 13 April 2007, in the City of Manila, Philippines. (Sgd.) HARPER LEE Affiant PLUS: Jurat Place, date, signature, address, Roll number, IBP receipt number, PTR number, MCLE Compliance or Exemption Number, Contact Details City of Manila, 13 April 2007. Atty. Mitch McDeere Counsel for the Defendant 2 The Firm, Laguna Street, Quezon City, Metro Manila (Telephone, Fax, Email) Roll No. IBP OR No., date and place of issue PTR OR No., date and place of issue MCLE Compliance/Exemption No.

COMMON TO CIVIL AND CRIMINAL : FORMAL OFFER OF EVIDENCE Republic of the Philippines National Capital Judicial Region REGIONAL TRIAL COURT Branch 90, Quezon City PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff, Criminal Case No. 000011 - versus RECY DIVIST, Accused. x ------------------------------------------ x FORMAL OFFER OF EVIDENCE THE PROSECUTION, by the undersigned public and private prosecutors, respectfully offer their documentary exhibits in support of their case-in-chief: 1. Exhibit A, the sworn statement of AlangKaso, the private complainant, and Exhibit A-1, his signatureto prove that on the date and time stated in the affidavit, the accused issued a post-dated check in the amount of One Million Pesos (P1,000,000.00) which, on presentment for payment, was dishonored for lack of insufficient funds; to prove authorship and the authenticity of the sworn statement; and as part of the testimony of the private complainant. 2. Exhibit B, the post-dated check dated 30 June 2004, issued by the accused in the amount of One Million Pesos (P1,000,000.00); Exhibit B-1, the dorsal side of the check with notation DAIF; Exhibit B-2, the signature of accused on face of the checkto prove the issuance of the check, the amount stated, the reason for dishonor and the identity of the issuer. The marked copies of Exhibits A and B are already part of the record. WHEREFORE, the prosecution respectfully prays that the foregoing Exhibits be ADMITTED as proof of the facts therein stated and in support of its case-in-chief and for all other relevant purposes. Quezon City; 7 July 2007. ELLIOT NESS Public Prosecutor Copy furnished: MITCH MCDEERE Counsel for Accused ATTICUS FINCH Private Prosecutor

CRIMINAL :DEMURRER TO EVIDENCE (Caption) PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff, - versus ANAKIN SKYWALKER, Accused. x ---------------------------------------- x DEMURRER TO THE PROSECUTIONS EVIDENCE THE ACCUSED, by counsel, with leave of court previously obtained , respectfully submits this Demurrer to the Prosecutions Evidence on the ground that the prosecution has failed to adduce sufficient evidence of his guilt to overcome the presumption of innocence and shift the burden of proof: 1. Under the Constitution, the accused is presumed to be innocent until proven guilty. The effect of this presumption is that it entitles the accused to not say anything in his defense and places the burden directly on the prosecution to prove everything relative to his guilt. Thus, the prosecution must rely on the strength of its evidence and not wait for the accused to offer any defense. It is only in the event that the prosecution, after resting its case, has adduced sufficient evidence of guilt that the burden of proof shifts to the accused. 2. The prosecution has failed to adduce sufficient evidence of guilt such as would shift the burden of proof. 2.1. The accused is charged with violation of PD 1866; the gravamen of the offense is unauthorized possession of a firearm. Concretely, this means that the prosecution must prove that the accused had no legal authority to possess any firearm. 2.2. The prosecution has failed to show that the accused had no license to carry a firearm. The proof of the negative element is indispensable to proof of a violation of PD 1866. Without proof of this negative element, the crime is not proven. 3. Absent proof of the negative element, i.e., absence of a license, the offense is not proven. The accused is innocent; he must, thus, be acquitted. WHEREFORE, the accused respectfully prays that the Information against him be DISMISSED and that he be ACQUITTED of the crime charged. Quezon City; 13 April 2007. DARTH SIDIOUS Counsel for the Accused [Address] PLUS: Request for and Notice of Hearing Criminal Case No. 007 For: Violation of PD 1866

CIVIL : DEMURRER TO EVIDENCE (Caption) ANAKIN SKYWALKER, Plaintiff, - versus PADME AMIDALA, Defendant. x ---------------------------------- x DEMURRER TO THE EVIDENCE DEFENDANT, by counsel, with leave of court previously sought and granted , respectfully submits this Demurrer to the Evidence because plaintiff has failed to prove entitlement to his claims by a preponderance of evidence: 1. This action seeks to collect a sum of money arising from a contract. 2. Plaintiff, after resting his case, has failed to: (a) prove the authenticity of the contract, (b) the extent of the obligation under the contract, (c) the demandability of the obligation under the contract and (d) defendants liability for the obligation and damages. 3. Consequently, plaintiff has failed to prove his claims by a preponderance of evidence and defendant is entitled to a dismissal of the Complaint against her. WHEREFORE, defendant respectfully prays that the Complaint against her be DISMISSED. Quezon City; 13 April 2007. (Sgd.) OBI WAN KENOBI Counsel for Defendant [Address] PLUS: Request for and Notice of Hearing Civil Case No. 000909