Practice question
Counsel quotes Tijam’s disapproval of seeking relief and later challenging jurisdiction but omits Figueroa’s limiting analysis. Counsel asks for automatic estoppel against every accused who obeyed trial orders. Which is correct?
- The selected quotation eliminates every limit recognized in Figueroa.
- The full controlling distinction must be applied; compelled defense participation alone does not reproduce Tijam’s exceptional facts.
- An accused’s attendance always supplies statutory subject-matter power.
- The prosecutor can privately waive all jurisdiction statutes for everyone.
- The adverse result alone conclusively proves laches.
Legal references
- Figueroa v. People, G.R. No. 147406, July 14, 2008, main decision, law at institution and narrow estoppel doctrine: https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/jul2008/gr_147406_2008.html
- Tijam v. Sibonghanoy, G.R. No. L-21450, April 15, 1968, main decision, surety and exceptional inequitable conduct: https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1968/apr1968/gr_l-21450_1968.html
Answer this question in flashcards to review your response and continue practicing.