CrimPro Reviewer

SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW – MANILA PART I SUGGESTED ANSWERS TO BAR EXAM QUESTIONS
LAW STUDENT GOVERNMENT (AY 2018-2019) YEARS 1997 – 2006

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE BAR Q&As 1997– 2016
Acquittal; Effect (2002)
Academics Committee Head: Vice President for Academics: Delia sued Victor for personal injuries which she allegedly sustained when
Pojas, Kristofer Abe B. Areño, Kim Louise C. she was struck by a car driven by Victor. May the court receive in evidence,
(4th Year Batch Representative) over proper and timely objection by Delia, a certified true copy of a judgment
of acquittal in a criminal prosecution charging Victor with hit-and-run driving
Contributors/Members: in connection with Delia’s injuries? Why? (3%)
Angara, Patrick Alexis (President)
Lamorena, Angelico Joshua U. (2nd Year Batch Representative) SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Adap, Robert Anton C. If the judgment of acquittal in the criminal case finds that the act or omission
Pajarillaga, Jan Laurence M. from which the civil liability may arise does not exist, the court may receive it
Tubon, Lois Renee R. in evidence over the objection by Delia. [Rule 111, sec. 2, last paragraph].
This work is made possible through joint efforts of the members and ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
volunteers of the Law Student Government Academics Committee 2018- If the judgment of acquittal is based on reasonable doubt, the court may
2019. This is not an original work by the persons named herein but is only a receive it in evidence because in such case, the civil action for damages which
compilation of answers to bar examination questions by the UP Law may be instituted requires only a preponderance of the evidence. (Art. 29,
Complex, Philippine Association of Law Schools, and local law students and Civil Code).
lawyers. This work is not intended for sale nor commerce but may be freely
distributed and mass produced by those who seek a better understanding of Actions; BP22; Civil Action deemed included (2001)
the concepts in Criminal Procedure. Saturnino filed a criminal action against Alex for the latter’s bouncing check.
On the date of the hearing after the arraignment, Saturnino manifested to
Due credit and appreciation are extended to those who actually own the the court that he is reserving his right to file a separate civil action. The court
intellectual property rights over the content of this material as well as to the allowed Saturnino to file a civil action separately and proceeded to hear the
contributors and volunteers. The latter intends to do no copyright criminal case. Alex filed a motion for reconsideration contending that the civil
infringement nor do they accept any liability for the content and action is deemed included in the criminal case. The court reconsidered its
consequences of any act performed by the user, except for typographical, order and ruled that Saturnino could not file a separate action. Is the court’s
grammatical, or related errors. order granting the motion for reconsideration correct? Why? (5%)
For contributions, suggestions, participations, you may approach the Law SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Student Government or contact the same through any of the following Yes, the court’s order granting the motion for reconsideration is correct. The
media: Facebook: LSG San Beda Manila (@lsg.sanbedamanila); Rules provide that the criminal action for violation of B.P. Blg. 22 shall be
Contact Number: 09951693210; E-mail address: [email protected] deemed to include the corresponding civil action, and that no reservation to
file such civil action separately shall be allowed. [Sec. 1(b), Rule 111, Revised
UIOGD. Rules of Criminal Procedure]
Page 1 of 32 Criminal Procedure Bar Q&As 1997 - 2016

LSG AY 2018-2019
grant of the motion to quash the attempted homicide information correct?
Actions; BP22; Demurrer to Evidence (2003) Reason (5%)
In an action for violation of Batas Pambansa Big. 22, the court granted the
accused’s demurrer to evidence which he filed without leave of court. SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Although he was acquitted of the crime charged, he, however, was required Yes, the dismissal of the complaint for slight physical injuries is proper
by the court to pay the private complainant the face value of the check. The because in Metropolitan Manila and in chartered cities, the case has to be
accused filed a Motion of Reconsideration regarding the order to pay the commenced only by information. (Sec. 11, Revised Rule on Summary
face value of the check on the following grounds: a) the demurrer to Procedure).
evidence applied only to the criminal aspect of the case; and b) at the very
least, he was entitled to adduce controverting evidence on the civil liability. No, the grant of the motion to quash the attempted homicide information on
Resolve the Motion for Reconsideration. (6%) the ground of double jeopardy was not correct, because there was no valid
prosecution for slight physical injuries.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
(a) The Motion for Reconsideration should be denied. The ground that the Actions; Discretionary Power of Fiscal (1999)
demurrer to evidence applied only to the criminal aspect of the case was not A filed with the Office of the Fiscal a Complaint for estafa against B. After the
correct because the criminal action for violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 preliminary investigation, the Fiscal dismissed the Complaint for lack of merit.
included the corresponding civil action. (Sec. 1(b) of Rule 111). May the Fiscal be compelled by mandamus to file the case in court? Explain.
(b) The accused was not entitled to adduce controverting evidence on the (2%)
civil liability, because he filed his demurrer to evidence without leave of court.
(Sec.23 of Rule 119). SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No. The public prosecutor may not be compelled by mandamus to file the
Actions; Commencement of an Action; Double Jeopardy (2004) case in court because the determination of probable cause is within the
SPO1 CNC filed with the MTC in Quezon City (MeTC- QC) a sworn written discretion of the prosecutor. The remedy is an appeal to the Secretary of
statement duly subscribed by him, charging RGR (an actual resident of Cebu Justice. (Sec. 4 Rule 112.)
City) with the offense of slight physical injuries allegedly inflicted on SPS (an
actual resident of Quezon City). The Judge of the branch to which the case Actions; Injunction (1999)
was raffled thereupon issued an order declaring that the case shall be Will injunction lie to restrain the commencement of a criminal action?
governed by the Rule on Summary Procedure in criminal cases. Soon Explain. (2%)
thereafter, the Judge ordered the dismissal of the case for the reason that it
was not commenced by information, as required by said Rule. SUGGESTED ANSWER:
As a general rule, injunction will not lie to restrain a criminal prosecution
Sometime later, based on the same facts giving rise to the slight physical except:
injuries case, the City Prosecutor filed with the same MeTC-QC an a) To afford adequate protection to the constitutional rights of the
information for attempted homicide against the same RGR. In due time, accused;
before arraignment, RGR moved to quash the information on the ground of b) When necessary for the orderly administration of justice or to avoid
double jeopardy and after due hearing, the Judge granted his motion. Was oppression or multiplicity of actions;
the dismissal of the complaint for slight physical injuries proper? Was the c) When double jeopardy is clearly apparent;

LSG AY 2018-2019
d) Where the charges are manifestly false and motivated by the lust for Arrest; Warrantless Arrests & Searches (1997)
vengeance; A was killed by B during a quarrel over a hostess in a nightclub. Two days
e) Where there is clearly no prima facie case against the accused and a after the incident, and upon complaint of the widow of A, the police arrested
motion to quash on that ground has been denied. (See cases cited in B without a warrant of arrest and searched his house without a search
Roberts, Jr., vs. Court of Appeals, 254 SCRA 307 [1996] and Brocka v. warrant. a) Can the gun used by B in shooting A, which was seized during the
Enrile, 192 SCRA 183 [1990].) search of the house of B, be admitted in evidence? b) Is the arrest of B legal?
c) Under the circumstances, can B be convicted of homicide?
Arrest; Warrantless Arrest; Preliminary Investigation (2004)
AX swindled RY in the amount of P10,000 sometime in mid-2003. On the SUGGESTED ANSWER:
strength of the sworn statement given by RY personally to SPO1 Juan Ramos (a) No. The gun seized during the search of the house of B without a
sometime in mid-2004, and without securing a warrant, the police officer search warrant is not admissible in evidence. (Secs. 2 and 3[2], Art. III
arrested AX. Forthwith the police officer filed with the City Prosecutor of of Constitution). Moreover, the search was not an incident to a lawful
Manila a complaint for estafa supported by RY"s sworn statement and other arrest of a person under Sec. 12 of Rule 126.
documentary evidence. After due inquest, the prosecutor filed the requisite
information with the MM RTC. No preliminary investigation was conducted (b) No. A warrantless arrest requires that the crime has in fact just been
either before or after the filing of the information and the accused at no time committed and the police arresting has personal knowledge of facts
asked for such an investigation. However, before arraignment, the accused that the person to be arrested has committed it. (Sec. 5, Rule 113).
moved to quash the information on the ground that the prosecutor suffered Here, the crime has not just been committed since a period of two
from a want of authority to file the information because of his failure to days had already lapsed, and the police arresting has no such
conduct a preliminary investigation before filing the information, as required personal knowledge because he was not present when the incident
by the Rules of Court. Is the warrantless arrest of AX valid? Is he entitled to a happened. (Go vs. Court of Appeals. 206 SCRA 138).
preliminary investigation before the filing of the information? Explain. (5%)
(c) Yes. The gun is not indispensable in the conviction of A because the
SUGGESTED ANSWER: court may rely on testimonial or other evidence.
No. The warrantless arrest is not valid because the alleged offense has not
just been committed. The crime was allegedly committed one year before the Arrest; Warrantless Arrests & Seizures (2003)
arrest. (Sec. 5 (b) of Rule 113). In a buy-bust operation, the police operatives arrested the accused and
Yes, he is entitled to a preliminary investigation because he was not lawfully seized from him a sachet of shabu and an unlicensed firearm. The accused
arrested without a warrant (See Sec. 7 of Rule 112). He can move for a was charged in two Informations, one for violation of the “Dangerous Drug
reinvestigation. Act”, as amended, and another for illegal possession of firearms.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER: The accused filed an action for recovery of the firearm in another court
He is not entitled to a preliminary investigation because the penalty for against the police officers with an application for the issuance of a writ of
estafa is the sum of P10,000 does not exceed 4 years and 2 months. Under replevin. He alleged in his Complaint that he was a military informer who had
Sec. 1, second par., Rule 112, a preliminary investigation is not required. been issued a written authority to carry said firearm. The police officers
(Note: The penalty is not stated in the question.) moved to dismiss the complaint on the ground that the subject firearm was

LSG AY 2018-2019
in custodia legis. The court denied the motion and instead issued the writ of whether the evidence of D’s guilt was strong for purposes of bail. Is the ruling
replevin. correct? Why? (3%)
(a) Was the seizure of the firearm valid?
(b) Was the denial of the motion to dismiss proper? 6% SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, the prosecution is only required to present as much evidence as is
SUGGESTED ANSWER: necessary to determine whether the evidence of D’s guilt is strong for
(a) Yes, the seizure of the firearm was valid because it was seized in the purposes of bail.(Rule 114, sec. 8).
course of a valid arrest in a buy-bust operation. (Sec. 12 and 13 of Rule 126)
A search warrant was not necessary. (People v. Salazar, 266 SCRA 607 Bail; Appeal (1998)
[1997]). In an information charging them of Murder, policemen A, B and C were
convicted of Homicide. A appealed from the decision but B and C did not. B
(b) The denial of the motion to dismiss was not proper. The court had no started serving his sentence but C escaped and is at large. In the Court of
authority to issue the writ of replevin whether the firearm was in custodia Appeals, A applied for bail but was denied. Finally, the Court of Appeals
legis or not. The motion to recover the firearm should be filed in the court rendered a decision acquitting A on the ground that the evidence pointed to
where the criminal action is pending. the NPA as the killers of the victim.
1 Was the Court of Appeal's denial of A’s application for bail proper? [2%]
Arrest; Warrantless Arrests; Objection (2000) 2 Can B and C be benefited by the decision of the Court of Appeals? [3%]
FG was arrested without a warrant by policemen while he was walking in a
busy street. After preliminary investigation, he was charged with rape and the SUGGESTED ANSWER:
corresponding information was filed in the RTC. On arraignment, he pleaded 1, Yes, the Court of Appeals properly denied A's application for bail. The
not guilty. Trial on the merits ensued. The court rendered judgment court had the discretion to do so. Although A was convicted of homicide
convicting him. On appeal, FG claims that the judgment is void because he only, since he was charged with a capital offense, on appeal he could be
was illegally arrested. If you were the Solicitor General, counsel for the People convicted of the capital offense. (Obosa vs.Court of Appeals, 266 SCRA 281.)
of the Philippines, how would you refute said claim? (5%)
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
SUGGESTED ANSWER: Under Circular No. 2-92, A is entitled to bail because he was convicted of
Any objection to the illegality of the arrest of the accused without a warrant homicide and hence the evidence of guilt of murder is not strong.
is deemed waived when he pleaded not guilty at the arraignment without
raising the question. T is too late to complain about a warrantless arrest after SUGGESTED ANSWER:
trial is commenced and completed and a judgment of conviction rendered 2. B, who did not appeal, can be benefited by the decision of the Court of
against the accused. (People v. Cabiles, 284 SCRA 199, [1999]) Appeals which is favorable and applicable to him. (Sec. 11 [a]. Rule 122, Rules
of Criminal Procedure.) The benefit will also apply to C even if his appeal is
Bail (2002) dismissed because of his escape.
D was charged with murder, a capital offense. After arraignment, he applied
for bail. The trial court ordered the prosecution to present its evidence in full
on the ground that only on the basis of such presentation could it determine

LSG AY 2018-2019
Bail; Application; Venue (2002) not punishable by death, reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment, be
If an information was filed in the RTC-Manila charging D with homicide and admitted to bail as a matter of right, with sufficient sureties, or be released
he was arrested in Quezon City, in what court or courts may he apply for bail? on recognizance as prescribed by law or Rule 114. (Sec. 4, Rule 114, Rules of
Explain. (3%) Court, as amended by Circular No. 12-94.)
SUGGESTED ANSWER: When bail is a matter of discretion:

D may apply for bail in the RTC-Manila where the information was filed or in Upon conviction by the RTC of an offense not punishable by death, reclusion
the RTC-Quezon City where he was arrested, or if no judge, thereof is perpetua or life imprisonment, on application of the accused. If the penalty of
available, with any metropolitan trial judge, municipal trial judge or municipal imprisonment exceeds six years but not more than 20 years, bail shall be
circuit trial judge therein. (Rule 114, sec. 17). denied upon a showing by the prosecution, with notice to the accused, of the
following or other similar circumstances:
Bail; Forms of Bail (1999) 1. That the accused is a recidivist, quasi-recidivist or habitual
In what forms may bail be given? (2%) delinquent, or has committed the crime aggravated by the
circumstance of reiteration;
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
2. That the accused is found to have previously escaped from legal
Bail may be given by a corporate surety, or through a property bond, cash
confinement, evaded sentence, or has violated the conditions of his
deposit or recognizance.
bail without valid justification;
3. That the accused committed the offense while on
Bail; Matter of Right (1999)
4. Probation, parole, or under conditional pardon;
When the accused is entitled as a matter of right to bail, may the Court refuse
5. That the circumstances of the accused or his case indicate the
to grant him bail on the ground that there exists a high degree of probability
probability of flight if released on bail; or
that he will abscond or escape? Explain. (2%)
6. That there is undue risk that during the pendency of the appeal, the
accused may commit another crime. (Sec. 1, Id.)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
If bail is a matter of right, it cannot be denied on the ground that there exists
Bail; Matter of Right vs. Matter of Discretion (2006)
a high degree of probability that the accused will abscond or escape. What
When is bail a matter of right and when is it a matter of discretion? (5%)
the court can do is to increase the amount of the bail. One of the guidelines
that the judge may use in fixing a reasonable amount of bail is the probability
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
of the accused appearing in trial.
Bail is a matter of right:
(a) before or after conviction by the inferior courts;
Bail; Matter of Right vs. Matter of Discretion (1999)
(b) before conviction by the RTC of an offense not punishable by death,
When is bail a matter of right and when is it a matter
reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment., when the evidence of guilt
of discretion? (2%)
is not strong (Sec. 4, Rule 114, 2000 Rules of Criminal Procedure).
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Bail is discretionary: Upon conviction by the RTC of an offense not punishable
When Bail is a matter of right:
by death, reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment (Sec. 5, Rule 114, 2000
All persons in custody shall (a) before or after conviction by the metropolitan
Rules of Criminal Procedure).
and municipal trial courts, and (b) before conviction by the RTC of an offense
LSG AY 2018-2019
Bail; Witness Posting Bail (1999) SUGGESTED ANSWER:
May the Court require a witness to post bail? Explain your answer. (2%) No. The court should not grant defendant's demurrer to evidence because
the case is for breach of contract of carriage. Proof that the defendant was
SUGGESTED ANSWER: negligent and that such negligence was the proximate cause of the collision
Yes. The court may require a witness to post bail if he is a material witness is not required. (Articles 1170 and 2201,
and bail is needed to secure his appearance. The rules provide that when the
court is satisfied, upon proof or oath, that a material witness will not testify Civil Code; (Mendoza v. Phil. Airlines, Inc., 90 Phil. 836 [1952]; Batangas
when required, it may, upon motion of either party, order the witness to post Transportation Co. v. Caguimbal, 22 SCRA171 U 968]; Abeto v. PAL, 115 SCRA
bail in such sum as may be deemed proper. Upon refusal to post bail, the 489 [1982]; Aboitiz v. Court of Appeals, 129 SCRA 95 [1984]).
court shall commit him to prison until he complies or is legally discharged
after his testimony is taken. (Sec. 6, Rule 119) Demurrer to Evidence; w/o Leave of Court (1998)
Facing a charge of Murder, X filed a petition for bail. The petition was
Complaint vs. Information (1999) opposed by the prosecution but after hearing the court granted bail to X. On
Distinguish a Complaint from Information. (2%) the first scheduled hearing on the merits, the prosecution manifested that it
was not adducing additional evidence and that it was resting its case. X filed
SUGGESTED ANSWER: a demurrer to evidence without leave of court but it was denied by the court.
In criminal procedure, a complaint is a sworn written statement charging a 1. Did the court have the discretion to deny the demurrer to evidence
person with an offense, subscribed by the offended party, any peace officer under the circumstances mentioned above? (2%)
or other peace officer charged with the enforcement of the law violated. (Sec. 2. If he swore to the preceding question is in the affirmative, can X
3, Rule 110, 1985 Rules of Criminal Procedure); while an information is an adduce evidence in his defense after the denial of his demurrer to
accusation in writing charging a person with an offense subscribed by the evidence? [1%]
prosecutor and filed with the court. (Sec. 4, Id.) 3. Without further proceeding and on the sole basis of the evidence of
the prosecution, can the court legally convict X for Murder? (2%)
Demurrer to Evidence; Contract of Carriage (2004) SUGGESTED ANSWER:

AX, a Makati-bound paying passenger of PBU, a public of the fatal head 1. Yes. The Court had the discretion to deny the demurrer to the
wounds he sustained as a result of the strong impact of the collision between evidence, because although the evidence presented by the
the bus and a dump truck that happened while the bus was still travelling on prosecution at the hearing for bail was not strong, without any
EDSA towards Makati. The foregoing facts, among others, were duly evidence for the defense, it could be sufficient for conviction.
established on evidence-in-chief by the plaintiff TY, sole heir of AX, in TY’s 2. No. Because he filed the demurrer to the evidence without leave.
action against the subject common carrier for breach of contract of carriage. (Sec. 15, Rule 119, Rules of Criminal Procedure.) However, the trial
After TY had rested his case, the common carrier filed a demurrer to court should inquire as to why the accused filed the demurrer
evidence, contending that plaintiff’s evidence is insufficient because it did not without leave and whether his lawyer knew that the effect of filing it
show (1) that defendant was negligent and (2) that such negligence was the without leave is to waive the presentation of the evidence for the
proximate cause of the collision. Should the court grant or deny defendant's accused. (People vs. Fores, 269 SCRA62.)
demurrer to evidence? Reason briefly. (5%)

LSG AY 2018-2019
3. Yes. Without any evidence from the accused, the prima facie present evidence and submitted the case for judgment on the basis of the
evidence of the prosecution has been converted to proof beyond prosecution evidence. In due time, the court rendered judgment finding the
reasonable doubt. accused guilty of the offense charged beyond reasonable doubt and
accordingly imposing on him the penalty prescribed therefor. Is the
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER: judgment of the trial court valid and proper? Reason. (5%)
If the evidence of guilt is not strong and beyond reasonable doubt then the
court cannot legally convict X for murder. SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes. The judgment of the trial court is valid. The accused did not ask for leave
Demurrer to Evidence; w/o Leave of Court (2001) to file the demurrer to evidence. He is deemed to have waived his right to
Carlos, the accused in a theft case, filed a demurrer to evidence without leave present evidence. (Sec. 23 of Rule 119; People v. Flores, 269 SCRA 62 [1997];
of court. The court denied the demurrer to evidence and Carlos moved to Bernardo v. Court of Appeals, 278 SCRA 782 [1997]. However, the judgment is
present his evidence. The court denied Carlos’ motion to present evidence not proper or is erroneous because there was no showing from the proper
and instead judgment on the basis of the evidence for the prosecution. Was office like the Firearms Explosive Unit of the Philippine National Police that
the court correct in preventing Carlos from presenting his evidence and the accused has a permit to own or possess the firearm, which is fatal to the
rendering judgment on the basis of the evidence for the prosecution? Why? conviction of the accused. (Mallari v. Court of Appeals &People,265 SCRA
(5%) 456[1996]).
SUGGESTED ANSWER: Dismissal; Failure to Prosecute (2003)

Yes, because the demurrer to the evidence was filed without leave of court. When a criminal case is dismissed on nolle prosequi, can it later be refilled?
The Rules provide that when the demurrer to evidence is filed without leave (4%)
of court, the accused waives the right to present evidence and submits the
case for judgment on the basis of the evidence for the prosecution. (Sec. 23 SUGGESTED ANSWER:
of Rule 119, Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure) As a general rule, when a criminal case is dismissed on nolle prosequi before
the accused is placed on trial and before he is called on to plead, this is not
Demurrer to Evidence; w/o Leave of Court (2004) equivalent to an acquittal and does not bar a subsequent prosecution for the
The information for illegal possession of firearm filed against the accused same offense. (Galvez v. Court of Appeals, 237 SCRA 685 [1994]).
specifically alleged that he had no license or permit to possess the caliber .45
pistol mentioned therein. In its evidence-in-chief, the prosecution established Dismissal; Provisional Dismissal (2003)
the fact that the subject firearm was lawfully seized by the police from the Before the arraignment for the crime of murder, the private complainant
possession of the accused, that is, while the pistol was tucked at his waist in executed an Affidavit of Desistance stating that she was not sure if the
plain view, without the accused being able to present any license or permit to accused was the man who killed her husband. The public prosecutor filed a
possess the firearm. The prosecution on such evidence rested its case and Motion to Quash the Information on the ground that with private
within a period of five days therefrom, the accused filed a demurrer to complainant’s desistance, he did not have evidence sufficient to convict the
evidence, in sum contending that the prosecution evidence has not accused. On 02 January 2001, the court without further proceedings granted
established the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and so prayed the motion and provisionally dismissed the case. The accused gave his
that he be acquitted of the offense charged. The trial court denied the express consent to the provisional dismissal of the case. The offended party
demurrer to evidence and deemed the accused as having waived his right to was notified of the dismissal but she refused to give her consent.

LSG AY 2018-2019
complainant had done in the performance of his duties as chairman of the
Subsequently, the private complainant urged the public prosecutor to refile board of election inspectors. D moved to quash the second information on
the murder charge because the accused failed to pay the consideration which the ground that its filing had placed him in double jeopardy. How should D’s
he had promised for the execution of the Affidavit of Desistance. The public motion to quash be resolved? (4%)
prosecutor obliged and refiled the murder charge against the accused on 01
February 2003, the accused filed a Motion to Quash the Information on the SUGGESTED ANSWER:
ground that the provisional dismissal of the case had already become D’s motion to quash should be granted on the ground of double jeopardy
permanent. (6%) because the first offense charged is necessarily included in the second
a) Was the provisional dismissal of the case proper? offense charged. [Draculan v. Donato, 140 SCRA 425 (1985)].
b) Resolve the Motion to Quash.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
D’s motion to quash should be denied because the two dismissals of the case
SUGGESTED ANSWER: against him were on his motion (hence with his express consent) and his right
(a) The provisional dismissal of the case was proper because the accused to a speedy trial was not violated.
gave his express consent thereto and the offended party was notified. It
was not necessary for the offended party to give her consent thereto. Double Jeopardy; Upgrading; Original Charges (2005)
(Sec. 8 of Rule 117). For the multiple stab wounds sustained by the victim, Noel was charged with
(b) The motion to quash the information should be denied because, while frustrated homicide in the RTC. Upon arraignment, he entered a plea of guilty
the provisional dismissal had already become permanent, the prescriptive to said crime. Neither the court nor the prosecution was aware that the victim
period for filing the murder charge had not prescribed. There was no had died two days earlier on account of his stab wounds. Because of his
double jeopardy because the first case was dismissed before the accused guilty plea, Noel was convicted of frustrated homicide and meted the
had pleaded to the charge. (Sec. 7 of Rule 117). corresponding penalty. When the prosecution learned of the victim's death, it
filed within fifteen (15) days therefrom a motion to amend the information to
Double Jeopardy (2002) upgrade the charge from frustrated homicide to consummated homicide.
D was charged with slight physical injuries in the MTC. He pleaded not guilty Noel opposed the motion claiming that the admission of the amended
and went to trial. After the prosecution had presented its evidence, the trial information would place him in double jeopardy. Resolve the motion with
court set the continuation of the hearing on another date. On the date reasons. (4%)
scheduled for hearing, the prosecutor failed to appear, whereupon the court,
on motion of D, dismissed the case. A few minutes later, the prosecutor SUGGESTED ANSWER:
arrived and opposed the dismissal of the case. The court reconsidered its The amended information to consummated homicide from frustrated
order and directed D to present his evidence. Before the next date of trial homicide does not place the accused in double jeopardy. As provided in the
came, however, D moved that the last order be set aside on the ground that second paragraph of Sec. 7, Rule 117,2000 Rules of Criminal Procedure, the
the reinstatement of the case had placed him twice in jeopardy. Acceding to conviction of the accused shall not be a bar to another prosecution for an
this motion, the court again dismissed the case. The prosecutor then filed an offense which necessarily includes the offense charged in the former
information in the RTC, charging D with direct assault based on the same complaint or information when: (a) the graver offense developed due to
facts alleged in the information for slight physical injuries but with the added supervening facts arising from the same act or omission constituting the
allegation that D inflicted the injuries out of resentment for what the former charge; or (b) the facts constituting the graver charge became known

LSG AY 2018-2019
or were discovered only after a plea was entered in the former complaint or considered as aggravating. (Sec. 8 of Rule 110, Revised Rules of Criminal
information. Here, when the plea to frustrated homicide was made, neither Procedure)
the court nor the prosecution was aware that the victim had died two days
earlier on account of his stab wounds. ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
The information prepared by the prosecutor is not correct because the
Extradition (2004) accused should have been charged with qualified trespass to dwelling.
RP and State XX have a subsisting Extradition Treaty. Pursuant thereto RP's
Secretary of Justice (SOJ) filed a Petition for Extradition before the MM RTC Information; Amendment (2001)
alleging that Juan Kwan is the subject of an arrest warrant duly issued by the Amando was charged with frustrated homicide. Before he entered his plea
proper criminal court of State XX in connection with a criminal case for tax and upon the advice of his counsel, he manifested his willingness to admit
evasion and fraud before his return to RP as a balikbayan. Petitioner prays having committed the offense of serious physical injuries. The prosecution
that Juan be extradited and delivered to the proper authorities of State XX for then filed an amended information for serious physical injuries against
trial, and that to prevent Juan's flight in the interim, a warrant for his Amando. What steps or action should the prosecution take so that the
immediate arrest be issued. Before the RTC could act on the petition for amended information against Amando which downgrades the nature of the
extradition, Juan filed before it an urgent motion, in sum praying (1) that offense could be validly made? Why? (5%)
SoJ's application for an arrest warrant be set for hearing and (2) that Juan be
allowed to post bail in the event the court would issue an arrest warrant. SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Should the court grant or deny Juan's prayers? Reason. (5%) In order that the amended information which downgrades the nature of the
offense could be validly made, the prosecution should file a motion to ask for
SUGGESTED ANSWER: leave of court with notice to the offended party. (Sec.14 of Rule 110, Revised
Under the Extradition Treaty and Law, the application of the Secretary of Rules of Criminal Procedure). The new rule is for the protection of the interest
Justice for a warrant of arrest need not be set for hearing, and Juan cannot of the offended party and to prevent possible abuse by the prosecution.
be allowed to post bail if the court would issue a warrant of arrest. The
provisions in the Rules of Court on arrest and bail are not basically applicable. Information; Amendment; Double Jeopardy; Bail (2002)
(Government of the United States of America v. Puruganan, 389 SCRA 623 A. D and E were charged with homicide in one information. Before they could
[2002]) be arraigned, the prosecution moved to amend the information to exclude E
therefrom. Can the court grant the motion to amend? Why? (2%)
Information (2001) B. On the facts above stated, suppose the prosecution, instead of filing a
The prosecution filed an information against Jose for slight physical injuries motion to amend, moved to withdraw the information altogether and its
alleging the acts constituting the offense but without anymore alleging that it motion was granted. Can the prosecution re-file the information although
was committed after Jose’s unlawful entry in the complainant’s abode. Was this time for murder? Explain (3%)
the information correctly prepared by the prosecution? Why? (5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
SUGGESTED ANSWER: A. Yes, provided notice is given to the offended party
No. The aggravating circumstance of unlawful entry in the complainant’s and the court states its reasons for granting the same.
abode has to be specified in the information; otherwise, it cannot be (Rule 110, sec. 14).

LSG AY 2018-2019
B. Yes, the prosecution can re-file the information for murder in substitution The Public Prosecutor filed a Motion to Quash the Warrant of Arrest and to
of the information for homicide because no double jeopardy has as yet Withdraw the Information, attaching to it the Resolution of the Secretary of
attached. [Galvez v. Court of Appeals, 237 SCRA 685 (1994)]. Justice. The court denied the motion. (6%) a) Was there a legal basis for the
court to deny themotion? b) If you were the counsel for the accused, what
Information; Amendment; Supervening Events (1997) remedies, if any, would you pursue?
A was accused of homicide for the killing of B. During the trial, the public
prosecutor received a copy of the marriage certificate of A and B. SUGGESTED ANSWER:
(a) Can the public prosecutor move for the amendment of the information to a. Yes, there is a legal basis for the court to deny the motion to quash the
charge A with the crime of parricide (b)Suppose instead of moving for the warrant of arrest and to withdraw the information. The court is not
amendment of the information, the public prosecutor presented in evidence bound by the Resolution of the Secretary of Justice. (Crespo v.Mogul, 151
the marriage certificate without objection on the part of the defense, could SCRA 462 [1987]).
Abe convicted of parricide? b. If I were the counsel for the accused, I would surrender the accused and
apply for bail because the offense is merely homicide, a non-capital
SUGGESTED ANSWER: offense. At the pre-trial, I would make a stipulation of facts with the
(a) No. The Information cannot be amended to change the offense charged prosecution which would show that no offense was committed.
from homicide to parricide. Firstly, the marriage is not a supervening fact
arising from the act constituting the charge of homicide. (Sec. 7[a] of Information; Motion to Quash (2000)
Rule 117). Secondly, after plea, amendments may be done only as to BC is charged with illegal possession of firearms under an Information signed
matters of form. The amendment is substantial because it will change the by a Provincial Prosecutor. After arraignment but before pre-trial, BC found
nature of the offense. (Sec. 14 of Rule 110; Dionaldous. Dacuycuy. 108 out that the Provincial Prosecutor had no authority to sign and file the
SCRA 736). information as it was the City Prosecutor who has such authority. During the
(b) No. A can be convicted only of homicide not of parricide which is a pre-trial, BC moves that the case against him be dismissed on the ground
graver offense. The accused has the constitutional rights of due process that the Information is defective because the officer signing it lacked the
and to be informed of the nature and the cause of the accusation against authority to do so. The Provincial Prosecutor opposes the motion on the
him. (Secs. 1, 14 (1) and (2} Art. III. 1987Constitution), ground of estoppel as BC did not move to quash the Information before
arraignment. If you are counsel for BC, what is your argument to refute the
Information; Bail (2003) opposition of the Provincial Prosecutor? (5%)
After the requisite proceedings, the Provincial Prosecutor filed an Information
for homicide againstX. The latter, however, timely filed a Petition for Review SUGGESTED ANSWER:
of the Resolution of the Provincial Prosecutor with the Secretary of Justice I would argue that since the Provincial Prosecutor had no authority to file the
who, in due time, issued a Resolution reversing the resolution of the information, the court did not acquire jurisdiction over the person of the
Provincial Prosecutor and directing him to withdraw the Information. accused and over the subject matter of the offense charged. (Cudia v. Court
of Appeals, 284 SCRA 173 [1999]). Hence, this ground is not waived if not
Before the Provincial Prosecutor could comply with the directive of the raised in a motion to quash and could be raised at the pretrial. (Sec. 8, Rule
Secretary of Justice, the court issued a warrant of arrest against X. 117, Rules of Court).

LSG AY 2018-2019
Information; Motion to Quash (2005) f) That the criminal action or liability has been extinguished;
Rodolfo is charged with possession of unlicensed firearms in an Information g) That it contains averments which, if true, would constitute a legal
filed in the RTC. It was alleged therein that Rodolfo was in possession of two excuse or justification; and
unlicensed firearms: a .45 caliber and-a .32 caliber. Under Republic Act No. h) That the accused has been previously convicted or in jeopardy of
8294, possession of an unlicensed .45 caliber gun is punishable by prision being convicted, or acquitted of the offense charged. (Sec. 3, Rule
mayor in its minimum period and a fine of P30.000.00, while possession of an 117. Rules of Criminal Procedure.)
unlicensed .32 caliber gun is punishable by prision correctional in its
maximum period and a fine of not less than P15,000.00. As counsel of the SUGGESTED ANSWER:
accused, you intend to file a motion to quash the Information. What ground 2. No. The certification which is provided in Sec. 4, Rule 112. Rules of Criminal
or grounds should you invoke? Explain. (4%) Procedure, is not an indispensable part of the information. (People vs. Lapura,
255 SCRA 85.)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The ground for the motion to quash is that more than one offense is charged Judgment; Promulgation of Judgment (1997)
in the information. (Sec. 3[f], Rule 117, 2000 Rules of Criminal Procedure) X, the accused in a homicide case before the RTC. Dagupan Cay, was
Likewise, the RTC has no jurisdiction over the second offense of personally notified of the promulgation of judgment in his case set for 10
by: [email protected] Page 46 of 66 possession of an unlicensed .32 December 1996. On said date. X was not present as he had to attend to the
caliber gun, punishable by prision correctional in its maximum period and a trial of another criminal case against him in Tarlac, Tarlac. The trial court
fine of not less than P15.000.00. It is the MTC that has exclusive and original denied the motion of the counsel of X to postpone the promulgation.
jurisdiction over all offenses punishable by imprisonment not exceeding six (a) How shall the court promulgate the judgment in the absence of the
years. (Sec. 2, R.A. No. 7691, amending B.P. Blg.129) accused?
(b) Can the trial court also order the arrest of X?
Information; Motion to Quash; Grounds (1998)
1. Give two (2) grounds to quash an Information.[2%] SUGGESTED ANSWER:
2. If the Information is not accompanied by a certification that a (a) In the absence of the accused, the promulgation shall be made by
preliminary investigation has been conducted. Is the Information recording the Judgment in the criminal docket and a copy thereof
void? [3%] served upon the accused or counsel. (Sec. 6. third par., Rule 120)
(b) No, the trial court cannot order the arrest of X if the judgment is one
SUGGESTED ANSWER: of acquittal and, in any event, his failure to appear was with justifiable
1. Two grounds to quash an Information are: cause since he had to attend to another criminal case against him.
a) That the facts charged do not constitute an offense;
and Jurisdiction; Complex Crimes (2003)
b) That the court trying the case has no jurisdiction over the offense In complex crimes, how is the jurisdiction of a court determined? 4%
charged or the person of the accused.
c) That the officer who filed the information had no authority to do so; SUGGESTED ANSWER:
d) That it does not conform substantially to the prescribed form; In a complex crime, jurisdiction over the whole complex crime must be
e) That more than one offense is charged except in those cases in which lodged with the trial court having jurisdiction to impose the maximum and
existing laws prescribe a single punishment for various offenses;

LSG AY 2018-2019
most serious penalty imposable on an offense forming part of the complex Parties; Prosecution of Offenses (2000)
crime. (Cuyos v. Garcia, 160 SCRA 302 [1988]). Your friend YY, an orphan, 16 years old, seeks your legal advice. She tells you
that ZZ, her uncle, subjected her to acts of lasciviousness; that when she told
Jurisdiction; Finality of a Judgment (2005) her grandparents, they told her to just keep quiet and not to file charges
Mariano was convicted by the RTC for raping Victoria and meted the penalty against ZZ, their son. Feeling very much aggrieved, she asks you how her
of reclusion perpetua. While serving sentence at the National Penitentiary, uncle ZZ can be made to answer for his crime. a) What would your advice be?
Mariano and Victoria were married. Mariano filed a motion in said court for Explain. (3%) b) Suppose the crime committed against YY by her uncle ZZ is
his release from the penitentiary on his claim that under Republic Act No. rape, witnessed by your mutual friend XX. But this time, YY was prevailed
8353, his marriage to Victoria extinguished the criminal action against him for upon by her grandparents not to file charges. XX asks you if she can initiate
rape, as well as the penalty imposed on him. However, the court denied the the complaint against ZZ. Would your answer be the same? Explain. (2%).
motion on the ground that it had lost jurisdiction over the case after its
decision had become final and executory. (7%) SUGGESTED ANSWER:
(a) I would advise the minor, an orphan of 16 years of age, to file the
a) Is the filing of the court correct? Explain. complaint herself independently of her grandparents, because she is
not incompetent or incapable to doing so upon grounds other than
SUGGESTED ANSWER: her minority. (Sec. 5, Rule 110, Rules of Criminal Procedure.)
No. The court can never lose jurisdiction so long as its decision has not yet (b) Since rape is now classified as a Crime Against Persons under the
been fully implemented and satisfied. Finality of a judgment cannot operate Anti-Rape Law of 1997 (RA 8353), I would advise XX to initiate the
to divest a court of its jurisdiction. The court retains an interest in seeing the complaint against ZZ.
proper execution and implementation of its judgments, and to that extent,
may issue such orders necessary and appropriate for these purposes. Plea of Guilty; to a Lesser Offense (2002)
(Echegaray v. Secretary of Justice, G.R. No. 13205, January 19, 1999) D was charged with theft of an article worth p15,000.00. Upon being
arraigned, he pleaded not guilty to the offense charged. Thereafter, before
b) What remedy/remedies should the counsel of Mariano take to secure his trial commenced, he asked the court to allow him to change his plea of not
proper and most expeditious release from the National Penitentiary? Explain. guilty to a plea of guilt but only to estafa involving P5,000.00. Can the court
allow D to change his plea? Why? (2%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
To secure the proper and most expeditious release of Mariano from the SUGGESTED ANSWER:
National Penitentiary, his counsel should file: (a) a petition for habeas corpus No, because a plea of guilty to a lesser offense may be allowed if the lesser
for the illegal confinement of Mariano (Rule 102), or (b) a motion in the court offense is necessarily included in the offense charged. (Rule 116, sec. 2).
which convicted him, to nullify the execution of his sentence or the order of Estafa involving P5,000.00 is not necessarily included in theft of an article
his commitment on the ground that a supervening development had worth P15,000.00
occurred (Melo v. People, G.R. No. L- 3580, March 22, 1950) despite the
finality of the judgment. Prejudicial Question (1999)
What is a prejudicial question? (2%)

LSG AY 2018-2019
SUGGESTED ANSWER: on the same double sale that was the subject of the civil action. A filed a
A prejudicial question is an issue involved in a civil action which is similar or "Motion for Suspension of Action" in the criminal case, contending that the
intimately related to the issue raised in the criminal action, the resolution of resolution of the issue in the civil case would necessarily be determinative of
which determines whether or not the criminal action may proceed. (Sec. 5 of his guilt or innocence. Is the suspension of the criminal action in order?
Rule 111.) Explain. (2%)
ANOTHER ANSWER: SUGGESTED ANSWER:

A prejudicial question is one based on a fact distinct and separate from the Yes. The suspension of the criminal action is in order because the defense of
crime but so intimately connected with it that it determines the guilt or A in the civil action, that he never sold the property to B and that his
innocence of the accused. purported signatures in the first deed of sale were forgeries, is a prejudicial
question the resolution of which is determinative of his guilt or innocence. If
Prejudicial Question (2000) the first sale is null and void, there would be no double sale and A would be
CX is charged with estafa in court for failure to remit to MM sums of money innocent of the offense of estafa.
collected by him (CX) for MM in payment for goods purchased from MM, by (Ras v. Rasul, 100 SCRA 125.)
depositing the amounts in his (CX’s) personal bank account. CX files a motion
to suspend proceedings pending resolution of a civil case earlier filed in court Pre-Trial Agreement (2004)
by CX against MM for accounting and damages involving the amounts Mayor TM was charged of malversation through falsification of official
subject of the criminal case. As the prosecutor in the criminal case, briefly documents. Assisted by Atty. OP as counsel de parte during pre-trial, he
discuss your grounds in support of your opposition to the motion to suspend signed together with Ombudsman Prosecutor TG a "Joint Stipulation of Facts
proceedings. (5%). and Documents," which was presented to the Sandiganbayan. Before the
court could issue a pre-trial order but after some delay caused by Atty. OP,
SUGGESTED ANSWER: he was substituted by Atty. QR as defense counsel. Atty. QR forthwith filed a
As the prosecutor, I will argue that the motion to suspend is not in order for motion to withdraw the "Joint Stipulation," alleging that it is prejudicial to the
the following reasons: accused because it contains, inter alia, the statement that the "Defense
1. The civil case filed by CX against MM for accounting and damages admitted all the documentary evidence of the Prosecution," thus leaving the
does not involve an issue similar to or intimately related to the issue accused little or no room to defend himself, and violating his right against
of estafa raised in the criminal action. self- incrimination. Should the court grant or deny QR's motion? Reason. (5%)
2. The resolution of the issue in the civil case for accounting will not
determine whether or not the criminal action for estafa may proceed. SUGGESTED ANSWER:
(Sec. 5, Rule 111, Rules of Criminal Procedure.) The court should deny QR's motion. If in the pretrial agreement signed by the
accused and his counsel, the accused admits the documentary evidence of
Prejudicial Question; Suspension of Criminal Action (1999) the prosecution, it does not violate his right against self- incrimination. His
A allegedly sold to B a parcel of land which A later also sold to X. B brought a lawyer cannot file a motion to withdraw. A pre-trial order is not needed.
civil action for nullification of the second sale and asked that the sale made (Bayas v. Sandiganbayan, 391 SCRA 415(2002}). The admission of such
by A in his favor be declared valid. A theorized that he never sold the documentary evidence is allowed by the rule (Sec. 2 of Rule 118; People v.
property to B and his purported signatures appearing in the first deed of sale Hernandez, 260 SCRA 25 [1996]).
were forgeries. Thereafter, an Information for estafa was filed against A based

LSG AY 2018-2019
Pre-Trial; Criminal Case vs. Civil Case (1997) of up to eight years of prision mayor under the said Code. No appeal having
Give three distinctions between a pre-trial in a criminal case and a pre-trial in been taken therefrom, said judgment of conviction became final. Is the
a civil case. judgment of conviction valid? Is the said judgment reviewable thru a special
civil action for certiorari? Reason. (5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Three distinctions between a pre-trial in a criminal case and a pre-trial in a SUGGESTED ANSWER:
civil case are as follows: Yes, the judgment of conviction for theft upon an information for theft is
1. The pre-trial in a criminal case is conducted only "where the accused and valid because the court had jurisdiction to render judgment. However, the
counsel agree" (Rule 118, Sec. 1): while the pre-trial in a civil case is judgment was grossly and blatantly erroneous. The variance between the
mandatory. (Sec. 1 of former Rule 20; Sec, 1 of new Rule 18). evidence and the judgment of conviction is substantial since the evidence is
2. The pre-trial in a criminal case does not consider the possibility of a one for estafa while the judgment is one for theft. The elements of the two
compromise, which is one important aspect of the pre-trial in a civil case. crimes are not the same. (Lauro Santos v. People, 181 SCRA 487). One offense
(Sec. 1 of former Rule 20; Sec. 2 of new Rule 18). does not necessarily include or is included in the other. (Sec. 5 of Rule 120).
3. In a criminal case, a pre-trial agreement is required to be reduced to
writing and signed by the accused and his counsel (See; Rule 118, Sec. 4); The judgment of conviction is reviewable by certiorari even if no appeal had
while in a civil case, the agreement may be contained in the pre- trial been taken, because the judge committed a grave abuse of discretion
order. (Sec. 4 of former Rule 20; See 7 of new Rule 78). tantamount to lack or excess of his jurisdiction in convicting the accused of
theft and in violating due process and his right to be informed of the nature
Provisional Dismissal (2002) and the cause of the accusation against him, which make the judgment void.
In a prosecution for robbery against D, the prosecutor moved for the With the mistake in charging the proper offense, the judge should have
postponement of the first scheduled hearing on the ground that he had lost directed the filing of the proper information and thereafter dismissed the
his records of the case. The court granted the motion but, when the new date original information. (Sec. 19 of Rule 119).
of trial arrived, the prosecutor, alleging that he could not locate his witnesses,
moved for the provisional dismissal of the case. If D’s counsel does not Search Warrant; Motion to Quash (2005)
object, may the court grant the motion of the prosecutor? Why? (3%) Police operatives of the Western Police District, Philippine National Police,
applied for a search warrant in the RTC for the search of the house of Juan
SUGGESTED ANSWER: Santos and the seizure of an undetermined amount of shabu. The team
No, because a case cannot be provisionally dismissed except upon the arrived at the house of Santos but failed to find him there. Instead, the team
express consent of the accused and with notice to the offended party. (Rule found Roberto Co. The team conducted a search in the house of Santos in
117, sec. 8). the presence of Roberto Co and barangay officials and found ten (10) grams
of shabu. Roberto Co was charged in court with illegal possession of ten
Remedies; Void Judgment (2004) grams of shabu. Before his arraignment, Roberto Co filed a motion to quash
AX was charged before the YY RTC with theft of jewelry valued at P20.000, the warrant on the following grounds (a) it was not the accused named in the
punishable with imprisonment of up to 10 years of prision mayor under the search warrant; and (b) the warrant does not describe the article to be seized
Revised Penal Code. After trial, he was convicted of the offense charged, with sufficient particularity. Resolve the motion with reasons. (4%)
notwithstanding that the material facts duly established during the trial
showed that the offense committed was estafa, punishable by imprisonment

LSG AY 2018-2019
SUGGESTED ANSWER: c) The malversation of public funds by a Philippine consul detailed in
The motion to quash should be denied. The name of the person in the search the Philippine Embassy in London.
warrant is not important. It is not even necessary that a particular person be
implicated (Mantaring v. Roman, A.M. No. RTJ-93-904, February 28, 1996), so SUGGESTED ANSWER:
long as the search is conducted in the place where the search warrant will be (a) The proper venue is in Pasig City where the theft of the car was
served. Moreover, describing the shabu in an undetermined amount is committed, not in Obando where it was cannibalized. Theft is not a
sufficiently particular. (People v. Tee, G.R. Nos. 140546-47, January 20, 2003) continuing offense. (People v Mercado, 65 Phil 665).
(b) If the crime charged is theft, the venue is in Calamba where he did
Trial; Trial in Absentia; Automatic Review of Conviction (1998) not turn in his collections. If the crime of X is estafa, the essential
1. What are the requisites of a trial in absentia? [2%] ingredients of the offense took place in Tagaytay City where he
2. If an accused who was sentenced to death escapes, is there still a received his collections, in Calamba where he should have turned in
legal necessity for theSupreme Court to review the decision of his collections, and in Makati City where the ABC Company was
conviction?[3%] based. The information may therefore be filed in Tagaytay City or
Calamba or Makati which have concurrent territorial Jurisdiction.
SUGGESTED ANSWER: (Catingub vs. Court of Appeals, 121 SCRA 106).
1. The requisites of trial in absentia are: (c) The proper court is the Sandiganbayan which has jurisdiction over
(a) the accused has already been arraigned; crimes committed by a consul or higher official in the diplomatic
(b) he has been duly notified of the trial; and service. (Sec. 4(c). PD 1606, as amended by RA. No. 7975). The
(c) his failure to appear is unjustifiable. (Sec. 14 [2], Article III. Sandiganbayan is a national court. (Nunez v. Sandiganbayan, 111
Constitution; Parada vs. Veneracion, 269 SCRA 371 [1997].) SCRA 433 [1982]. It has only one venue at present, which is in Metro
Manila, until RA. No. 7975, providing for two other branches in Cebu
2. Yes, there is still a legal necessity for the Supreme Court (as of 2004 the and in Cagayan de Oro, is implemented.
Court of Appeals has the jurisdiction to such review) to review the decision of
conviction sentencing the accused to death, because he is entitled to an PART II SUGGESTED ANSWERS TO BAR EXAM QUESTIONS
automatic review of the death sentence. (Sees.3[e] and 10, Rule 122, Rules of YEARS 2007 - 2013
Criminal Procedure; People vs. Espargas, 260 SCRA 539.)
TOPIC: ACTIONS
Venue (1997)
Where is the proper venue for the filing of an information in the following Actions; Commencement of an Action (2012)
cases? X was arrested, en flagrante, for robbing a bank. After an investigation, he
a) The theft of a car in Pasig City which was brought to Obando, was brought before the office of the prosecutor for inquest, but
Bulacan, where it was cannibalized. unfortunately no inquest prosecutor was available. May the bank directly file
b) The theft by X, a bill collector of ABC Company, with main offices in the complaint with the proper court? If in the affirmative, what document
Makati City, of his collections from customers in Tagaytay City. In the should be filed? (5%)
contract of employment, X was detailed to the Calamba branch
office, Laguna, where he was to turn in his collections.

LSG AY 2018-2019
SUGGESTED ANSWER: this type of action; the evidence you would need; and types of defenses you
Yes, the bank may directly file the complaint with the proper court. In the could expect. (5%)
absence or unavailability of an inquest prosecutor, the complaint may be
filed by the offended party or a peace officer directly with the proper court SUGGESTED ANSWER:
on the basis of the affidavit of the offended party or arresting officer or An independent civil action is an action which is entirely distinct and separate
person (Section 6, Rule 112 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure). from the criminal action. Such civil action shall proceed independently of the
criminal prosecution and shall require only a preponderance of evidence.
Actions; Commencement of an Action; Criminal, Civil (2013) Section 3 of Rule 111 allows the filing of an independent civil action by the
While in his Nissan Patrol and hurrying home to Quezon City from his work in offended party based on Article 33 and 2176 of the New Civil Code.
Makati, Gary figured in a vehicular mishap along that portion of EDSA within
the City of Mandaluyong. He was bumped from behind by a Ford Expedition The different approaches that the plaintiff can pursue in this type of action
SUV driven by Horace who was observed using his cellular phone at the time are as follows: (a) File the independent civil action and prosecute the criminal
of the collision. Both vehicles - more than 5 years old – no longer carried case separately. (b) File the independent civil action without filing the criminal
insurance other than the compulsory third party liability insurance. Gary case. (c) File the criminal case without need of reserving the independent civil
suffered physical injuries while his Nissan Patrol sustained damage in excess action. Aside from the testimony of Gary, the pieces of evidence that would
of Php500,000. be required in an independent civil action are the medical report and
certificate regarding the injuries sustained by Gary, hospital and medical bills
(A) As counsel for Gary, describe the process you need to undertake starting including receipt of payments made police report and proof of the extent of
from the point of the incident if Gary would proceed criminally against damage sustained by his car and the Affidavit of witnesses who saw Horace
Horace, and identify the court with jurisdiction over the case. (3%) using his cellular phone at the time the incident happened.
SUGGESTED ANSWER: I will also present proof of employment of Gary such as payslip in order to
A)As counsel for Gary, I will first have him medically examined in order to prove income thereof. I will also present the attending Doctor of Gary to
ascertain the gravity and extent of the injuries sustained from the accident. corroborate and authenticate the contents of the medical report and abstract
Second, I will secure an accurate police report relative to the mishap unless thereof. The evidence required to hold defendant Horace liable is only
Horace admits his fault in writing, and request Gary to secure a car damage preponderance of evidence. The types of defenses that may be raised against
estimate from a car repair shop. Third, I will ask him to execute his this action are fortuitous event, force majeure or acts of God. The defendant
Sinumpaang Salaysay. Thereafter, I will use his Sinumpaang Salaysay or can also invoke contributory negligence as partial defense. Moreover, the
prepare a Complaint-affidavit and file the same in the Office of the City defendant can raise the usual defenses that the: (a) plaintiff will be entitled to
Prosecutor of Mandaluyong City (Sections 1 and 15 Rule 110, Rules of double compensation or recovery, and (b) defendant will be constrained to
Criminal Procedure). This being a case of simple negligence and the penalty litigate twice and therefore suffer the cost of litigation twice.
for the offense does not exceed six months imprisonment, the court with
original and exclusive jurisdiction is the Metropolitan Trial Court of Actions; Commencement of an Action; Party (2013)
Mandaluyong City. Yvonne, a young and lonely OFW, had an intimate relationship abroad with a
friend, Percy. Although Yvonne comes home to Manila every six months, her
B) If Gary chooses to file an independent civil action for damages, explain foreign posting still left her husband Dario lonely so that he also engaged in
briefly this type of action: its legal basis; the different approaches in pursuing his own extramarital activities. In one particularly exhilarating session with his

LSG AY 2018-2019
girlfriend, Dario died. Within 180 days from Dario’s death, Yvonne gives birth type of the child is a possible product of the mother and alleged father does
in Manila to a baby boy. Irate relatives of Dario contemplate criminally not conclusively prove that the child is born by such parents; but, if the blood
charging Yvonne for adultery and they hire your law firm to handle the case. type of the child is not the possible blood type when the blood of the mother
and the alleged father are cross matched, then the child cannot possibly be
A) Is the contemplated criminal action a viable option to bring? (3%) that of the alleged father.
SUGGESTED ANSWER: ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:

No. Section 5 of Rule 110 provides that the crimes of adultery and No, there is no showing in the problem of any ground that would serve as a
concubinage shall not be prosecuted except upon complaint filed by the basis for an action to impugn paternity of the baby boy. In Concepcion vs.
offended spouse. Since the offended spouse is already dead, then the Almonte, G.R. No. 123450, August 31, 2005 citing Cabatania vs. Court of
criminal action for Adultery as contemplated by offended party‟s relatives is Appeals, the Supreme Court held that the law requires that every reasonable
no longer viable. Moreover, it appears that the adulterous acts of Yvonne presumption be made in favor of legitimacy.
were committed abroad. Hence, the contemplated criminal action is not
viable as the same was committed outside of the Philippine courts. The presumption of legitimacy does not only flow out of declaration in the
statute but is based on the broad principles of natural justice and the
B) Is a civil action to impugn the paternity of the baby boy feasible, and if so, supposed virtue of the mother. It is grounded on the policy to protect the
in what proceeding may such issue be determined? (5%) innocent offspring from the odium of illegitimacy. The presumption of
legitimacy proceeds from the sexual union in marriage, particularly during
SUGGESTED ANSWER: the period of conception. To overthrow this presumption on the basis of
Yes, under Article 171 of the Familyy Code, the heirs of the husband may Article 166 (1) (b) of the Family Code, it must be shown beyond reasonable
impugn the filiation of the child in the following cases: a) If the husband doubt that there was no access that could have enabled the husband to
should die before the expiration of the period fixed for bringing his action: b) father the child. Sexual Intercourse is to be presumed where personal access
If he should die after the filing of the complaint, without having desisted is not disposed, unless such presumption is rebutted by evidence to the
therefrom; or c) If the child was born after the death of the husband. Since contrary. Hence, a child born to a husband and wife during a valid marriage is
Dario is already dead when the baby was, his heirs have the right to impugn presumed legitimate. Thus, the child‟s legitimacy may be impugned only
the filiation of the child. Consequently, the heirs may impugn the filiation under the strict standards provided by law (Herrera vs. Alba, G.R. No. 148220,
either by a direct action to impugn such filiation or raise the same in a special June 15, 2005). [Note: The Family Code is not covered by the 2013 bar
proceeding for settlement of the estate of the decedent. In the said Examination Syllabus for Remedial Law].
proceeding, the Probate court has the power to determine questions as to
who are the heirs of the decedent (Reyes vs. Ysip, et. al., 97 Phil. 11, Jimenez Actions; Complaint; Forum Shopping (2010)
vs. IAC, 184 SCRA 367). X was driving the dump truck of Y along Cattleya Street in Sta. Maria,
Bulacan. Due to his negligence, X hit and injured V who was crossing the
Incidentally, the heirs can also submit the baby boy for DNA testing (A.M. No. street. Lawyer L, who witnessed the incident, offered his legal services to V. V,
6-11-5-SC, Rules on DNA Evidence) or even blood-test in order to determine who suffered physical injuries including a fractured wrist bone, underwent
paternity and filiation. In Jao vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-49162, July 28, surgery to screw a metal plate to his wrist bone. On complaint of V, a criminal
1987, the Supreme Court held that blood grouping tests are conclusive as to case for Reckless Imprudence Resulting in Serious Physical Injuries was filed
non-paternity, although inconclusive as to paternity. The fact that the blood against X before the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of Sta. Maria. Atty. L, the

LSG AY 2018-2019
private prosecutor, did not reserve the filing of a separate civil action. V SUGGESTED ANSWER:
subsequently filed a complaint for Damages against X and Y before the No, X may not move for dismissal of the civil action for damages on the
Regional Trial Court of Pangasinan in Urdaneta where he resides. In his contention that Y is an indispensable party who should be impleaded. Y is
"Certification Against Forum Shopping," V made no mention of the pendency not an indispensable party but only necessary party. Besides, nonjoinder and
of the criminal case in Sta. Maria. misjoinder of parties is not a ground for dismissal of actions (Rule 3, Sec. 11,
Rules of Court).
(a) Is V guilty of forum shopping? (2%)
(d) X moved for the suspension of the proceedings in the criminal case to
SUGGESTED ANSWER: await the decision in the civil case. For his part, Y moved for the suspension
No, V is not guilty of forum shopping because the case in Sta. Maria, Bulacan, of the civil case to await the decision in the criminal case. Which of them is
is a criminal action filed in the name of the People of the Philippines, where correct? Explain. (2%)
civil liability arising from the crime is deemed also instituted therewith;
whereas the case filed in Urdaneta, Pangasinan, is a civil action for quasi- SUGGESTED ANSWER:
delict in the name of V and against both X and Y for all damages caused by X Neither of them is correct. Both substantive law (Art. 33 of the Civil Code) and
and Y to V, which may be beyond the jurisdiction of MTC. Hence, the tests of procedural law (Rule 111, Sec. 3, Rules of Criminal Procedure) provide for the
forum shopping, which is res adjudicate or litis pendencia, do not obtain two actions to proceed independently of each other, therefore, no
here. Moreover, substantive law (Art. 33, Civil Code) and Sec. 3, Rule 111, suspension of action is authorized.
Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, expressly authorize the filing such
action for damages entirely separate and distinct from the criminal action. (e) Atty. L offered in the criminal case his affidavit respecting what he
However, the action for annulment is a personal action and the venue witnessed during the incident. X’s lawyer wanted to cross-examine Atty. L
depends on the residence of either A or B. Hence, it should be brought in the who, however, objected on the ground of lawyer-client privilege. Rule on the
RTC of the place where either of the parties resides. objection. (2%)
(b) Instead of filing an Answer, X and Y move to dismiss the complaint for SUGGESTED ANSWER:
damages on the ground of litis pendentia. Is the motion meritorious? Explain. The objection should be overruled. Lawyer-client privilege is not involved
(2%) here. The subject on which the counsel would be examined has been made
public in the affidavit he offered and thus, no longer privileged, aside from
SUGGESTED ANSWER: the fact that it is in respect of what the counsel witnessed during the incident
No, the motion to dismiss base on alleged litis pendencia is without merit and not to the communication made by the client to him or the advice he
because there is no identity of parties and subject matter in the two cases. gave thereon in his professional capacity.
Besides, Art. 33 of the Civil Code and Rule 111, Sec. 3 of the Rules of Criminal
Procedure authorize the separate civil action for damages arising from Actions; Hold Departure Order (2010)
physical injuries to proceed independently. While window-shopping at the mall on August 4, 2008, Dante lost his
organizer including his credit card and billing statement. Two days later,
(c) Suppose only X was named as defendant in the complaint for damages, upon reporting the matter to the credit card company, he learned that a one-
may he move for the dismissal of the complaint for failure of V to implead Y way airplane ticket was purchased online using his credit card for a flight to
as an indispensable party? (2%) Milan in mid- August 2008. Upon extensive inquiry with the airline company,

LSG AY 2018-2019
Dante discovered that the plane ticket was under the name of one Dina Meril. the suspect to Caloocan City for booking since that is where his station is?
Dante approaches you for legal advice. Explain briefly. (5%)
(a) What is the proper procedure to prevent Dina from leaving the SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Philippines? (2%) No, the arresting officer may not take the arrested suspect from Pasay City to
Caloocan City. The arresting officer is required to deliver the person arrested
SUGGESTED ANSWER: without a warrant to the nearest police station or jail (Rule 112, Sec. 5, 2000
I would advise: Rules of Criminal Procedure). To be sure, the nearest police station or jail is in
(1) The filing of an appropriate criminal action cognizable by the RTC against Pasay City where the arrest was made, and not in Caloocan City.
Dina and the filing in said criminal action a Motion for the issuance of a Hold
Departure Order; (b) In the course of serving a search warrant, the police find an unlicensed
(2) Thereafter, a written request with the Commissioner of the Bureau of firearm. Can the police take the firearm even if it is not covered by the search
Immigration for a Watch List Order pending the issuance of the Hold warrant? If the warrant is subsequently quashed, is the police required to
Departure Order should be filed; return the firearm? Explain briefly. (5%)
(3) Then, the airline company should be requested to cancel the ticket issued
to Dina. SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes, the police may take with him the “unlicensed” firearm although not
(b) Suppose an Information is filed against Dina on August 12, 2008 and she covered by the search warrant. Possession of an “unlicensed firearm” is a
is immediately arrested. What pieces of electronic evidence will Dante have criminal offense and the police officer may seize an article which is the
to secure in order to prove the fraudulent online transaction? (2%) “subject of an offense.” Thus us especially so considering that the “unlicensed
firearm” appears to be in “plain view” of the police officer when the
conducted the search.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
He will have to present (a) his report to the bank that he lost his credit card
(b) that the ticket was purchased after the report of the lost and (c) the Even if the warrant was subsequently quashed, the police are not mandated
purchase of one-way ticket. Dante should bring an original (or an equivalent to return the “unlicensed firearm.” The quashal of the search warrant did not
copy) printout of: 1) the online ticket purchase using his credit card; 2) the affect the validity of the seizure of the “unlicensed firearm.” Moreover,
phone call log to show that he already alerted the credit card company of his returning the firearm to a person who is not otherwise allowed by law to
loss; and 3) his credit card billing statement bearing the online ticket possess the same would be tantamount to abetting a violation of the law.
transaction.
TOPIC: BAIL
TOPIC: ARREST
Bail; Application (2012)
Arrest; Warrantless Arrests & Searches (2007) A was charged with a non-bailable offense. At the time when the warrant of
arrest was issued, he was confined in the hospital and could not obtain a
(a) On his way home, a member of the Caloocan City police force witnesses a valid clearance to leave the hospital. He filed a petition for bail saying therein
bus robbery in Pasay City and effects the arrest of the suspect. Can he bring

LSG AY 2018-2019
that he be considered as having placed himself under the jurisdiction of the Modes of discovery under civil actions do not apply to criminal proceedings
court. May the court entertain his petition? Why or why not? (5%) because the latter is primarily governed by the REVISED RULES OF CRIMINAL
PROCEDURE (Vda. de Manguerravs Risos – 563 SCRA 499).
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, the court may not entertain his petition as he has not yet been placed Information; Motion to Quash (2009)
under arrest. A must be “literally” placed under the custody of the law before Pedrito and Tomas, Mayor and Treasurer, respectively, of the Municipality of
his petition for bail could be entertained by the court (Miranda vs. Tuliao, G.R. San Miguel, Leyte, are charged before the Sandiganbayan for violation of
No. 158763, March 31, 2006). Section 3(e), RA no. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act). The
information alleges, among others, that the two conspired in the purchase of
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER: several units of computer through personal canvass instead of a public
Yes, a person is deemed to be under the custody of the law either when he bidding, causing undue injury to the municipality. Before arraignment, the
has been arrested or has surrendered himself to the jurisdiction of the court. accused moved for reinvestigation of the charge, which the court granted.
the accused who is confined in a hospital may be deemed to be in the After reinvestigation, the Office of the Special Prosecutor filed an amended
custody of the law if he clearly communicates his submission to the court information duly singed and approved by the Special Prosecutor, alleging the
while he is confined in the hospital. (Paderanga vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. same delictual facts, but with an additional allegation that the accused gave
No. 115407, August 28, 1995). unwarranted benefits to SB enterprises owned by Samuel. Samuel was also
indicted under the amended information. Before Samuel was arraigned, he
moved to quash the amended information on the ground that the officer
Discovery; Production and Inspection (2009) who filed had no authority to do so. Resolve the motion to quash with
The accused in a criminal case has the right to avail of the various modes of reasons.
discovery.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The motion to quash filed by Samuel should be granted. There is no showing
SUGGESTED ANSWER: that the special prosecutor was duly authorized or deputized to prosecute
TRUE. The accused has the right to move for the production or inspection of Samuel. Under R.A. No. 6770, also known as the Ombudsman Act of 1989,
material evidence in the possession of the prosecution. It authorizes the the Special Prosecutor has the power and authority, under the supervision
defense to inspect, copy or photograph any evidence of the prosecution in its and control of the Ombudsman, to conduct preliminary investigation and
possession after obtaining permission from the court (Rule 116, Sec. 10; prosecute criminal cases before the Sandiganbayan and perform such other
Webb vs. De Leon, 247 SCRA 652 [1995]). duties assigned to him by the Ombudsman (Calingin vs. Desierto, 529 SCRA
720 [2007]). Absent a clear delegation of authority from the Ombudsman to
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
the Special Prosecutor to file the information, the latter would have no
FALSE. The accused in criminal case only has the right to avail of conditional
authority to file the same. The Special Prosecutor cannot be considered an
examination of his witness before a judge, or, if not practicable, a member of
alter ego of the Ombudsman as the doctrine of qualified political agency
a Bar in good standing so designated by the judge in the order, or if the
does not apply to the office of the Ombudsman. In fact, the powers of the
order be made by a court of superior jurisdiction, before an inferior court to
office of the Special Prosecutor under the law may be exercised only under
be designated therein. (Sec.12 &13, Rule 119).
the supervision and control and upon authority of the Ombudsman (Perez vs.
Sandiganbayan, 503 SCRA 252 [2006]).

LSG AY 2018-2019
A) Where should Police Inspector Masigasig bring the felon for criminal
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER: processing? To Silang, Cavite where he is bound; to Makati where the bus
The motion to quash should be denied for lack of merit. The case is already actually was when the felonies took place; or back to Valenzuela where he is
filed in court which must have been done with the approval of the stationed? Which court has jurisdiction over the criminal cases? (3%)
Ombudsman, and thus the Special Prosecutor‟s office of the Ombudsman
takesover. As it is the court which ordered the reinvestigation, the Office of SUGGESTED ANSWER:
the Special Prosecutor which is handling the case in court, has the authority Police Inspector Masigasig should bring the felon to the nearest police
to act and when warranted, refile the case. The amendment made is only a station or jail in Makati City where the bus actually was when the felonies
matter of form which only particularized the violation of the same provision took place. In cases of warrantless arrest, the person arrested without a
of Rep. Act 3019, as amended. warrant shall be forthwith delivered to the nearest police station or jail and
shall be proceeded against in accordance with section 7 of Rule 11 (Section
Information; Motion to Quash (2009) 113, Rules of Criminal Procedure). Consequently, the criminal case for
A criminal information is filed in court charging Anselmo with homicide. robbery and illegal possession of firearms can be filed in Regional Trial Court
Anselmo files a motion to quash information on the ground that no of Makati City or on any of the places of departure or arrival of the bus.
preliminary investigation was conducted. Will the motion be granted? Why or
why not? (B) May the charges of robbery and illegal possession of firearm be filed
directly by the investigating prosecutor with the appropriate court without a
preliminary investigation? (4%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
NO, the motion to quash will not be granted. The lack of preliminary SUGGESTED ANSWER:
investigation is not a ground for a motion to quash under the Rules of Yes. Since the offender was arrested in flagrante delicto without a warrant of
Criminal Procedure. Preliminary investigation is only a statutory right and can arrest, an inquest proceeding should be conducted and thereafter a case may
be waived. The accused should instead file a motion for reinvestigation within be filed in court even without the requisite preliminary investigation.
five (5) days after he learns of the filing in Court of the case against him (Sec.
6, Rule 112, as amended). Under Section 6, Rule 112, Rules of Criminal Procedure, when a person is
lawfully arrested without a warrant involving an offense which requires a
Jurisdiction; Complex Crimes (2013) preliminary investigation, the complaint or information may be filed by a
On his way to the PNP Academy in Silang, Cavite on board a public transport prosecutor without a need of such investigation provided an inquest has
bus as a passenger, Police Inspector Masigasig of the Valenzuela Police been conducted in accordance with existing rules.
witnessed an on-going armed robbery while the bus was traversing Makati.
His alertness and training enabled him to foil the robbery and to subdue the Jurisdiction; Reinvestigation; Arrest (2008)
malefactor. He disarmed the felon and while frisking him, discovered another Jose, Alberto and Romeo were charged with murder. Upon filing the
handgun tucked in his waist. He seized both handguns and the malefactor information, the RTC judge issued warrants for their arrest. Learning of the
was later charged with the separate crimes of robbery and illegal possession issuance of the warrants, the three accused jointly filed a motion for
of firearm. reinvestigation and for the recall of the warrants of arrest. On the date set for
hearing of their motion, none of accused showed up in court for fear of being

LSG AY 2018-2019
arrested. The RTC judge denied their motion because the RTC did not acquire seizure of the shabu. If you are the judge, how would you rule on the motion
jurisdiction over the persons of the movants. Did the RTC rule correctly? to suppress?
SUGGESTED ANSWER: SUGGESTED ANSWER:

The RTC was not entirely correct in stating that it had no jurisdiction over the The “plain view” doctrine cannot be invoked because the marijuana leaves
persons of the accused. By filing motions and seeking affirmative reliefs from were wrapped in newsprint and there was no evidence as to whether the
the court, the accused voluntarily submitted themselves to the jurisdiction of marijuana leaves were discovered and seized before or after the seizure of
the court. However, the RTC correctly denied the motion for reinvestigation. the shabu. If they were discovered after the seizure of the shabu, then the
Before an accused ca move for reinvestigation and the recall of his warrant of marijuana could not have been seized in palin view (CF. Peo vs. Mua, G.R. No.
arrest, he must first surrender his person to the court (Miranda, et al. vs. 96177, 27 January 1997). In any case, the marijuana should be confiscated as
Tuliao, G.R. No. 158763, 31 March 2006). a prohibited article.
Res Judicata in Prison Grey (2010) Search & Seizure; Warrantless Search (2010)
What is "res judicata in prison grey"? (2%) As Cicero was walking down a dark alley one midnight, he saw an "owner-
type jeepney" approaching him. Sensing that the occupants of the vehicle
SUGGESTED ANSWER: were up to no good, he darted into a corner and ran. The occupants of the
“Res judicata in prison grey” is the criminal concept of double jeopardy, as vehicle − elements from the Western Police District − gave chase and
“res judicata” is the doctrine of civil law (Trinidad vs. Office of the apprehended him. The police apprehended Cicero, frisked him and found a
Ombudsman, G.R. No. 166038, December 4, 2007). sachet of 0.09 gram of shabu tucked in his waist and a Swiss knife in his
secret pocket, and detained him thereafter.
Described as “res judicata in prison grey,” the right against double jeopardy Is the arrest and body-search legal? (3%)
prohibits the prosecution of a person for a crime of which he has been
previously acquitted or convicted. The purpose is to set the effects of the first SUGGESTED ANSWER:
prosecution forever at rest, assuring the accused that he shall not thereafter The arrest and body-search was legal. Cicero appears to be alone „walking
be subjected to the danger and anxiety of a second charge against him for down the dark alley” and at midnight. There appears probable cause for the
the same offense (Joel B. Caes vs. Intermediate Appellate Court, November 6, policemen to check him, especially when he darted into a corner (presumably
1989). also dark) and run under such circumstance.
Search & Seizure; Plain View (2008) Although the arrest came after the body-search where Cicero was found with
The search warrant authorized the seizure of “undetermined quantity of shabu and a Swiss knife, the body-search is legal under the “Terry search”
shabu.” During the service of the search warrant, the raiding team also rule or the “stop and frisk” rule. And because the mere possession, with
recovered a kilo of dried marijuana leaves wrapped in newsprint. The accused animus, of dangerous drug (the shabu) is a violation of the law (R.A. 9165),
moved to suppress the marijuana leaves as evidence for the violation of the suspect is in a continuing state of committing a crime while he is illegally
Section 11 of the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002 since they possessing the dangerous drug, thus making the arrest tantamount to an
were not covered by the search warrant. The State justified the seizure of the arrest in flagrante: so the arrest is legal and correspondingly, the search and
marijuana leaves under the “plain view” doctrine. There was no indication of seizure of the shabu and the concealed knife may be regarded as incident to
whether the marijuana leaves were discovered and seized before or after the a lawful arrest.

LSG AY 2018-2019
(c) Describe the procedure that should be taken by the judge on the
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER: application. (2%)
No, the arrest and the body-search were not legal. In this case, Cicero did not
run because the occupants of the vehicle identified themselves as police SUGGESTED ANSWER:
officers. He darted into the corner and ran upon the belief that the occupants The judge must, before issuing the warrant, examine personally in the form of
of the vehicle were up to no good. Cicero‟s act of running does not show any searching questions and answers, in writing and under oath, the complainant
reasonable ground to believe that a crime has been committed or is about to and the witnesses he may produce on facts personally known to them and
be committed for the police officers to apprehend him and conduct body attach to the record their sworn statements, together with the affidavits
search. Hence, the arrest was illegal as it does not fall under any of the submitted. (Rule 126, Sec.5, Rules of Court). if the judge is satisfied of the
circumstances for a valid warrantless arrest provided in Sec. 5 of Rule 113 of existence of facts upon which the application is based or that there is
the Rules of Criminal Procedure. probable cause to believe that they exist, he shall issue the warrant, which
must be substantially in the form prescribed by the Rules. (Rule 126, Sec.6,
Search Warrant; Application; Venue (2012) Rules of Court).
A PDEA asset/informant tipped the PDEA Director Shabunot that a shabu
laboratory was operating in a house at Sta. Cruz, Laguna, rented by two (2) Suppose the judge issues the search
Chinese nationals, Ho Pia and Sio Pao. PDEA Director Shabunot wants to warrant worded in this way:
apply for a search warrant, but he is worried that if he applies for a search
warrant in any Laguna court, their plan might leak out.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
(a) Where can he file an application for search warrant? (2%) Plaintiff
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
PDEA Director Shabunot may file an application for search warrant in any -versus- Criminal Case No. 007 for
court within the judicial region where the crime was committed. (Rule 126, Violation of R.A. 9165
Sec.2[b]).
Ho Pia and Sio Pao,
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER: Accused.
PDEA Director Shabunot may file an application for search warrant before the
Executive Judge and Vice Executive Judges of the Regional Trial Courts of x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
Manila or Quezon Cities. (A.M. No. 99-10-09-SC, January 25, 2000). TO ANY PEACE OFFICER
(b) What documents should he prepare in his application for search warrant? Greetings:
(2%) It appearing to the satisfaction of the undersigned after examining
under oath PDEA Director shabunot that there is probable cause to
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
believe that violations of Section 18 and 16 of R.A. 9165 have been
He should prepare a petition for issuance of a search warrant and attach
committed and that there are good and sufficient reasons to believe
therein sworn statements and affidavits.
that Ho Pia and Sio Pao have in their possession or control, in a two

LSG AY 2018-2019
(2) door apartment with an iron gate located at Jupiter St., Sta. Cruz, SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Laguna, undetermined amount of "shabu" and drug manufacturing If I were the lawyer of Sio Pao and Ho Pia, I would file a Motion to Quash the
implements and paraphernalia which should be seized and brought search warrant for having been served beyond its period of validity. (Rule
to the undersigned, 126, Sec. 14, Rules of Court). A search warrant shall be valid only for ten (10)
days from its date. Thereafter, it shall be void. (Rule 126, Sec.10, Revised
You are hereby commanded to make an immediate search, at any Rules of Court).
time in the day or nights, of the premises above described and
forthwith seize and take possession of the abovementioned personal (f) Suppose an unlicensed armalite was found in plain view by the searchers
property, and bring said property to the undersigned to be dealt with and the warrant was ordered quashed, should the court order the return of
as the law directs. the same to the Chinese nationals? Explain your answer. (3%)
Witness my hand this 1st day of March, 2012. (signed) Judge XYZ SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, the court should not order the return of the unlicensed armalite because
it is contraband or illegal per se. (PDEA vs. Brodett, G.R. No. 196390,
d) Cite/enumerate the defects, if any, of the search warrant. (3%) September 28, 2011). The possession of an unlicensed armalite found in plain
view is mala prohibita. The same should be kept in custodial legis.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
(1) The search warrant failed to particularly describe the place to be Trial; Remedies (2013)
searched and the things to be seized (Rule 126, Sec.4, Rules of At the Public Attorney's Office station in Taguig where you are assigned, your
Court). work requires you to act as public defender at the local Regional Trial Court
and to handle cases involving indigents.
(2) The search warrant commanded the immediate search, at any time in
the day or night. The general rule is that a search warrant must be (A) In one criminal action for qualified theft where you are the defense
served in the day time (Rule 126, Sec.8, Revised Rules on Criminal attorney, you learned that the woman accused has been in detention for six
Procedure), or that portion of the twenty-four hours in which a months, yet she has not been to a courtroom nor seen a judge. What remedy
man‟s person and countenance are distinguishable (17 C.J. 1134). By would you undertake to address the situation and what forum would you use
way of exception, a search warrant may be made at night when it is to invoke this relief? (3%)
positively asserted in the affidavit that the property is on the person
or in the place ordered to be searched (Alvares vs. CFI of Tayabas, 64 SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Phil. 33). There is no showing that the exception applies. Section 7, Rule 119 provides, if the public attorney assigned to defend a
person charged with a crime knows that the latter is preventively detained,
(e) Suppose the search warrant was served on March 15, 2012 and the search either because he is charged with a bailable crime but has no means to post
yielded the described contraband and a case was filed against the accused in bail, or, is charged with a non-bailable crime, or, is serving a term of
RTC, Sta. Cruz, Laguna and you are the lawyer of Sio Pao and Ho Pia, what imprisonment in any penal institution, it shall be his duty to do the following:
will you do? (3%) (a) Shall promptly undertake to obtain the presence of the prisoner for trial
or cause a notice to be served on the person having custody of the prisoner
requiring such person to so advise the prisoner of his right to demand trial.

LSG AY 2018-2019
Ergo, a writ of mandamus is available to the accused to compel the dismissal
(B) Upon receipt of that notice, the custodian of the prisoner shall promptly of the case.
advise the prisoner of the charge and of his right to demand trial. If at any
time thereafter the prisoner informs his custodian that he demands such trial, ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
the latter shall cause notice to that effect to be sent promptly to the public The appropriate remedy of the detained accused is to apply for bail since
attorney. qualified theft is bailable, and she is entitled to bail before conviction in the
Regional Trial Court (Section 4, Rule 114 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure).
xxx [Note: unless the aggregate value of the property stolen is P500,000 and the
above she will not be entitled to bail as a matter of right, because the penalty
Moreover, Section 1 (e), Rule 116 provides, when the accused is under for the offense is reclusion perpetua pursuant to Memorandum Order No.
preventive detention, his case shall be raffled and its records transmitted to 117].
the judge to whom the case was raffled within the three (3) days from the
filing of the information or complaint. The accused shall be arraigned within (B) In another case, also for qualified theft, the detained young domestic
ten (10) days from the date of the raffle. The pre-trial conference of his case helper has been brought to court five times in the last six months, but the
shall be held within ten (10) days after the arraignment. prosecution has yet to commence the presentation of its evidence. You find
that the reason for this is the continued absence of the employer-
On the other hand, if the accused is not under preventive detention, the complainant who is working overseas.
arraignment shall be held within thirty (30) days from the date the court
acquires jurisdiction over the person of the accused. (Section 1 (g), Rule 116). What remedy is appropriate and before which forum would you invoke this
relief? (3%)
Since the accused has not been brought for arraignment within the limit
required in the aforementioned Rule, the Information may be dismissed upon SUGGESTED ANSWER:
motion of the accused invoking his right to speedy trial (Section 9, Rule 119) I will file a motion to dismiss the information in the court where the case is
or to a speedy disposition of cases (Section 16, Article III, 1987 Constitution). pending on the ground of denial of the accused right to speedy trial (Section
9, Rule 119; Tan vs. People, G.R. No. 173637, April 21, 2009, Third Division,
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER: Chico-Nazario, J.). this remedy can be invoked, at any time, before trial and if
A Petition for Mandamus is also feasible. In People vs. Lumanlaw, G.R. No. granted will result to an acquittal. Since the accused has been brought to
164953, February 13, 2006, the Supreme Court held that “a writ of mandamus Court five times and in each instance it was postponed, it is clear that her
may be issued to control the exercise of discretion when, in the performance right to a Speedy Trial has been violated. Moreover, I may request the court
of duty, there is undue delay that can be characterized as a grave abuse of to issue Subpoena Duces Tecum and Ad Testificandum to the witness, so in
discretion resulting in manifest injustice. Due to the unwarranted delays in case he disobeys same, he may be cited in contempt. I may also file a motion
the conduct of the arraignment of petitioner, he has indeed the right to to order the witness employer-complainant to post bail to secure his
demand – through a writ of mandamus – expeditious action from all official appearance in court. (Section 14, Rule 119).
tasked with the administration of justice. Thus, he may not only demand that
his arraignment be held but, ultimately, that the information against him be
dismissed on the ground of the violation of his right to speedy trial.”

LSG AY 2018-2019
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER: Would an application for bail be the appropriate remedy or is there another
I will move for the dismissal of the case for failure to prosecute. The grant of remedy available? Justify your chosen remedy and outline the appropriate
the motion will be with prejudice unless the court says otherwise. The Motion steps to take. (3%)
will be filed with the Court where the action is pending.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
C) Still in another case, this time for illegal possession of dangerous drugs, Yes. An application for bail is an appropriate remedy to secure provisional
the prosecution has rested but you saw from the records that the illegal liberty of the 14-year old boy. Under the Rules, bail is a matter of right before
substance allegedly involved has not been identified by any of the or even after conviction before the Metropolitan Trial Court which has
prosecution witnesses nor has it been the subject of any stipulation. jurisdiction over the crime of malicious mischief. (Section 4, Rule 114 of the
Rules of Criminal Procedure).
Should you now proceed posthaste to the presentation of defense evidence
or consider some other remedy? Explain the remedial steps you propose to ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
undertake. (3%) Under R.A. 9344 or otherwise known as the Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act
of 2006 as amended by R.A. 10630, a child in conflict with the law has the
SUGGESTED ANSWER: right to bail and recognizance or to be transferred to a youth detention
No. I will not proceed with the presentation of defense evidence. I will first home/youth rehabilitation center. Thus: Where a child is detained, the court
file a motion for leave to file demurrer to evidence within five (5) days from shall order: (a) the release of the minor on recognizance to his/her parents
the time the prosecution has rested its case. If the Motion is granted, I will file and other suitable person; (b) the release of the child in conflict with the law
a demurrer to evidence within a non-extendible period of ten (10) days from on bail; or (c) the transfer of the minor to a youth detention home/youth
notice on the ground of insufficiency of evidence. In the alternative, I may rehabilitation center. The court shall not order the detention of a child in a jail
immediately file a demurrer to evidence without leave of court (Section 23, pending trial or hearing of his case. The writ of habeas corpus shall extend to
Rule 119, Rules of Criminal Procedure). all cases of illegal confinement or detention by which any person is deprived
of his liberty, or by which the rightful custody of any person is withheld from
In People vs. De Guzman, G.R. No. 186498, March 26, 2010, the Supreme the person entitled thereto (IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION OF HABEAS
Court held that in a prosecution for violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act, the CORPUS OF EUFEMIA E. RODRIGUEZ, filed by EDGARDO E. VELUZ vs. LUISA
existence of the dangerous drugs is a condition sine qua non for conviction. R. VILLANUEVA and TERESITA R. PABELLO, G.R. No. 169482, January 29, 2008,
The dangerous drug is the very corpus delicti of the crime. CORONA, J.).
Similarly, in People vs. Sitco, G.R. No. 178202, May 14, 2010, the High Court Since minors fifteen (15) years of age and under are not criminally
held that in prosecutions involving narcotics and other illegal substances, the responsible, the child may not be detained to answer for the alleged offense.
substance itself constitutes part of the corpus delicti of the offense and the The arresting authority has the duty to immediately release the child to the
fact of its existence is vital to sustain a judgment of conviction beyond custody of his parents or guardians or in their absence to the child‟s nearest
reasonable doubt. relative (Section 20, republic Act 9344).
(D) In one other case, an indigent mother seeks assistance for her 14-year old Following the hierarchy of courts, the Petition must be filed in the Regional
son who has been arrested and detained for malicious mischief. trial Court having jurisdiction over the place where the child is being
detained.

LSG AY 2018-2019
[Note: R.A. 9344 is not covered by the 2013 Bar Examination Syllabus for There is absolutely no justification for postponing an arraignment of the
Remedial law]. accused nineteen (19) times and over a period of two (2) years. The
numerous, unreasonable postponements of the arraignment demonstrate an
Trial; Reverse Trial (2007) abusive exercise of discretion (Lumanlaw v. Peralta, 482 SCRA 396 [2006]).
(b) What is reverse trial and when may it be resorted to? Explain briefly. (5%) Arraignment of an accused would not take thirty minutes of the precious
time of the court, as against the preventive imprisonment and deprivation of
SUGGESTED ANSWER: liberty of the accused just because he does not have the means to post bail
A reverse trial is one where the defendant or the accused present evidence although the crime charged is bailable.
ahead of the plaintiff or prosecution and the latter is to present evidence by
way of rebuttal to the former‟s evidence. This kind of trial may take place in a The right to a speedy trial is guaranteed by the Constitution to every citizen
civil case when the defendant‟s Answer pleads new matters by way of accused of a crime, more so when is under preventive imprisonment. L, in the
affirmative defense, to defeat or evade liability for plaintiff‟s claim which is given case, was merely invoking his constitutional right when a motion to
not denied but controverted. dismiss the case was twice filed by his counsel. The RTC is virtually enjoined
by the fundamental law to respect such right; hence a duty. Having refused
In a criminal case, a reverse trial may take place when the accused made or neglected to discharge the duty enjoined by law whereas there is no
known to the trial court, on arraignment, that he adduce affirmative defense appeal nor any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of
of a justifying or exempting circumstances and thus impliedly admitting the law, the remedy of mandamus may be availed of.
act imputed to him. The trial court may then require the accused to present
evidence first, proving the requisites of the justifying or exempting Trial; Trial in Absentia (2010)
circumstance he is invoking, and the prosecution to present rebuttal evidence (1) Enumerate the requisites of a "trial in absentia " (2%) and a "promulgation
controverting the same. of judgment in absentia" (2%).
Trial; Speedy Trial (2007) SUGGESTED ANSWER:

L was charged with illegal possession of shabu before the RTC. Although bail The requisites of a valid trial in absentia are: (1) accused‟s arraignment; (2) his
was allowable under his indictment, he could not afford to post bail, and so due notification of the trial; (3) his unjustifiable failure to appear during trial
he remained in detention at the City Jail. For various reasons ranging from (Bernardo vs. People, G.R. No. 166980, April 4, 2007). The requisites for a valid
the promotion of the Presiding Judge, to the absence of the trial prosecutor, promulgation of judgment are: (a) A valid notice of promulgation of
and to the lack of notice to the City Jail Warden, the arraignment of L was judgment; (b) Said notice was duly furnished to the accused personally or
postpones nineteen times over a period of two years. Twice during that thru counsel; (c) Accused failed to appear on the scheduled date of
period, L’s counsel filed motions to dismiss, invoking the right of the accused promulgation of judgment despite due notice; (d) Such judgment be
to speedy trial. Both motions were denied by the RTC. Can L file a petition for recorded in the criminal docket; (e) Copy of said judgment had been duly
mandamus. Reason briefly. served upon the accused or his counsel.
SUGGESTED ANSWER: 2) Name two instances where the trial court can hold the accused civilly liable
Yes, L can file a petition for mandamus to enforce his constitutional right to a even if he is acquitted. (2%)
speedy trial which was capriciously denied to him.

LSG AY 2018-2019
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The instances where the civil liability is not extinguished despite the acquittal
of the accused where: (1) The acquittal is based on reasonable doubt; (2)
Where the court expressly declares that the liability of the accused is not
criminal but only civil in nature; and (3) Where the civil liability is not derived
from or based on the criminal act of which the accused is acquitted
(Remedios Nota Sapiera vs. Court of Appeals, September 14, 1999).
###

LSG AY 2018-2019
PART III SUGGESTED ANSWERS TO BAR EXAM QUESTIONS warrantless arrest effected six (6) days after the commission of the crime.
YEARS 2014 – 2016  
b) The phrase “personal knowledge of the facts and circumstances that the
Arrest (2016) person to be arrested committed it” means that matters in relation to the
Under Section 5, Rule 113, a warrantless arrest is allowed when an offense supposed commission of the crime were within the actual perception,
has just been committed and the peace officer has probable cause to believe, personal evaluation or observation of the police officer at the scene of the
based on his personal knowledge of facts and circumstances, that the person crime. Thus, even though the police officer has not seen someone actually,
to be arrested has committed it. A policeman approaches your for advice and fleeing, he could still make a warrantless arrest if, based on his personal
asks you how he will execute a warrantless arrest against a murderer who evaluation of the circumstances at the scene of the crime, he could determine
escaped after killing a person. The policeman arrived two (2) hours after the the existence of probable cause that the person sought to be arrested has
killing and a certain Max was allegedly the killer per information given by a committed the crime; however, the determination of probable cause and the
witness. He asks you to clarify the following: gathering of facts or circumstances should be made immediately after the
commission of the crime in order to comply with the element of immediacy.
a. How long after the commission of the crime can he still execute the  The arresting officer’s determination of probable cause under Section 5(b),
warrantless arrest?   Rule 113 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure is based on his personal
b. What does “personal knowledge of the facts and circumstances that the knowledge of the facts or circumstances that the person sought to be
person to be arrested committed it” mean? arrested has committed the crime. These facts or circumstances pertain to
actual facts or raw evidence, i.e., supported by circumstances sufficiently
SUGGESTED ANSWER: strong in themselves to create the probable cause of guilt on the person to
a) In executing a warrantless arrest under Section 5, Rule 113, the Supreme be arrested. A reasonable suspicion therefore must be founded on probable
Court held that the requirement that an offense has just been committed cause, coupled with good faith on the part of the peace officers making the
means that there must be a large measure of immediacy between the time arrest. The probable cause to justify warrantless arrest ordinarily signifies a
the offense was committed and the time of the arrest. (Joey M. Pestilos v. reasonable ground of suspicion supported by circumstances sufficiently
Moreno Generoso, G.R. No. 182601, November 10, 2014) If there was an strong in themselves to warrant a cautious man to believe that the person
appreciable lapse of time between the arrest and the commission of the accused is guilty of the offense with which he is charged, or an actual belief
crime, a warrant of arrest must be secured. In any case, personal knowledge or reasonable ground of suspicion, based on actual facts. (Joey M. Pestilos v.
by the arresting officer is an indispensable requirement to the validity of a Moreno Generoso, G.R. No. 182601, November 10, 2014)
valid warrantless arrest.  The exact period varies on a case to case basis. In
People v. Gerente, G.R. No. 95847-48, March 10, 1993), the Supreme Court Determination of probable cause and issuance of warrant of arrest
ruled that a warrantless arrest was validly executed upon the accused three (2015)
(3) hours after the commission of the crime. In People v. Tonog, Jr., G.R. No. An information for murder was filed against Rapido. The RTC judge, after
94533, February 4, 1992, the Supreme Court likewise upheld the valid personally evaluating the prosecutor's resolution, documents and parties'
warrantless arrest which was executed on the same day as the commission of affidavits submitted by the prosecutor, found probable cause and issued a
the crime. However, in People v. Del Rosario, 365 Phil. 292 (1999), the warrant of arrest. Rapido's lawyer examined the rollo of the case and found
Supreme Court held that the warrantless arrest effected a day after the that it only contained the copy of the information, the submissions of the
commission of the crime is invalid. In Go v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. prosecutor and a copy of the warrant of arrest. Immediately, Rapido's counsel
101837, February 11, 1992, the Supreme Court also declared invalid a filed a motion to quash the arrest warrant for being void, citing as grounds:

LSG AY 2018-2019
the petition on the grounds that it had already ruled that: (i) the evidence of
1)The judge before issuing the warrant did not personally conduct a guilt is strong; (ii) the resolution for the Petition for Bail is solely based on the
searching examination of the prosecution witnesses in violation of his client's evidence presented by the prosecution; and (iii) no Motion for
constitutionally-mandated rights;   Reconsideration was filed from the denial of the Petition for Bail.
2)There was no prior order finding probable cause before the judge issued
the arrest warrant.   a. If you are the Judge, how will you resolve the incident?
May the warrant of arrest be quashed on the grounds cited by Rapido's b. Suppose the accused is convicted of the crime of homicide and the
counsel? State your reason for each ground. accused filed a Notice of Appeal, is he entitled to bail?
SUGGESTED ANSWER: SUGGESTED ANSWER:

No, the warrant of arrest may not be quashed based on the grounds cited by A) If I were the Judge, I would grant the second Petition for Bail. Under
Rapido’s counsel. In the issuance of warrant of arrest, the mandate of the Section 7, Rule 114, Rules of Court, no person charge with a capital offense,
Constitution is for the judge to personally determine the existence of or an offense punishable by reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment, shall be
probable cause. The words “personal determination,” was interpreted by the admitted to bail when evidence of guilt is strong, regardless of the stage of
Supreme Court in Soliven v. Makasiar, G.R. No. 82585, November 14, 1988, as the criminal prosecution. In this case, the evidence of guilt for the crime of
the exclusive and personal responsibility of the issuing judge to satisfy murder is not strong, as shown by the prosecution’s failure to prove the
himself as to the existence of probable cause. circumstance that will qualify the crime to, and consequently convict the
accused of, murder. Accordingly, the accused should be allowed to post bail
What the law requires as personal determination on the part of a judge is because the evidence of his guilt is no strong (Sec. 13, Art. III, 1987
that he should not rely solely on the report of the investigating prosecutor. Constitution). Besides, it is settled that an Order granting bail is merely
Thus, personal examination of the complainant and his witnesses is, thus, not interlocutory which cannot attain finality (Pobre v. People, G. R. No. 141805,
mandatory and indispensable in the determination of probable cause for the July 8, 2015).
issuance of a warrant of arrest (People v. Joseph “Jojo” Grey, G.R. No. 10109,
July 26, 2010). B) Yes. The accused is entitled to bail subject to the discretion of the Court.
Under Section 5, Rule 114, Rules of Court, the appellate Court may allow him
At any rate, there is no law or rule that requires the Judge to issue a prior to post bail because the Trial Court in convicting him, changed the nature of
Order finding probable cause before the issuance of a warrant of arrest. the offense from non-bailable to bailable. Be that as it may, the denial of bail
pending appeal is a matter of wise discretion since after conviction by the
trial court, the presumption of innocence terminates and, accordingly, the
Bail (2014) constitutional right to bail ends. (Jose Antonio Leviste v. Court of Appeals,
A was charged with murder in the lower court. His Petition for Bail was G.R. No. 189122, March 17, 2010).
denied after a summary hearing on the ground that the prosecution had
established a strong evidence of guilt. No Motion for Reconsideration was Bail (2015)
filed from the denial of the Petition for Bail. During the reception of the Paz was awakened by a commotion coming from a condo unit next to hers.
evidence of the accused, the accused reiterated his petition for bail on the Alarmed, she called up the nearby police station. PO1 Remus and P02
ground that the witnesses so far presented by the accused had shown that Romulus proceeded to the condo unit identified by Paz. PO 1 Remus
no qualifying aggravating circumstance attended the killing. The court denied knocked at the door and when a man opened the door, PO1 Remus and his

LSG AY 2018-2019
companions introduced themselves as police officers. The man readily 2000).
identified himself as Oasis Jung and gestured to them to come in. Inside, the
police officers saw a young lady with her nose bleeding and face swollen. b)Yes. Oasis Jung can still question the validity of his arrest even after his
Asked by P02 Romulus what happened, the lady responded that she was release from detention on bail. Under Section 26, Rule 114 of the Rules of
beaten up by Oasis Jung. The police officers arrested Oasis Jung and brought Court, an application for or admission to bail shall not bar the accused from
him and the young lady back to the police station. PO1 Remus took the challenging the validity of his arrest or the legality of the warrant issued
young lady's statement who identified herself as AA. She narrated that she is therefor, or from assailing the regularity or questioning the absence of a
a sixteen-year-old high school student; that previous to the incident, she had preliminary investigation of a charge against him, provided that he raises
sexual intercourse with Oasis Jung at least five times on different occasions them before entering his plea.
and she was paid P5,000.00 each time and it was the first time that Oasis
Jung physically hurt her. P02 Romulus detained Oasis Jung at the station's Trial (2015)
jail. After the inquest proceeding, the public prosecutor filed an information AA, a twelve-year-old girl, while walking alone met BB, a teenage boy who
for Violation of R.A. No. 9262 (The VAWC Law) for physical violence and five befriended her. Later, BB brought AA to a nearby shanty where he raped her.
separate informations for violation of R.A. No. 7610 (The Child Abuse Law). The Information for rape filed against BB states:
Oasis Jung's lawyer filed a motion to be admitted to bail but the court issued
an order that approval of his bail bond shall be made only after his "On or about October 30, 2015, in the City of S.P. and within the jurisdiction
arraignment. of this Honorable Court, the accused, a minor, fifteen (15) years old with lewd
a. Did the court properly impose that bail condition? design and by means of force, violence and intimidation, did then and there,
b. After his release from detention on bail, can Oasis Jung still question the willfully, unlawfully and feloniously had sexual intercourse with AA, a minor,
validity of his arrest? twelve (12) years old against the latter's will and consent."
SUGGESTED ANSWER: At the trial, the prosecutor called to the witness stand AA as his first witness
a)No. The court did not properly impose that bail condition. The Revised and manifested that he be allowed to ask leading questions in conducting his
Rules of Criminal Procedure do not require the arraignment of the accused as direct examination pursuant to the Rule on the Examination of a Child
prerequisite to the conduct of hearings in the bail petition. A person is Witness. BB's counsel objected on the ground that the prosecutor has not
allowed to file a petition for bail as soon as he is deprived of his liberty by conducted a competency examination on the witness, a requirement before
virtue of his arrest or voluntary surrender. An accused need not wait for his the rule cited can be applied in the case.
arraignment before filing the bail petition (Serapio v. Sandiganbayan, G.R.
No. 149116, January 2, 2003). xxx
Moreover, the condition that the approval of bail bonds shall be made only After the prosecution had rested its case, BB's counsel filed with leave a
after arraignment would place the accused in a position where he has to demurrer to evidence, seeking the dismissal of the case on the ground that
choose between: (1) filing a motion to quash (the Information) and thus delay the prosecutor failed to present any evidence on BB' s minority as alleged in
his released on bail because until his motion to quash can be resolved, his the Information. Should the court grant the demurrer?
arraignment cannot be held; and (2) foregoing the filing of a motion to quash
(the Information) so that he can be arraigned at once and thereafter be SUGGESTED ANSWER:
released on bail (Lavides v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 129670, February 1, No, the court should not grant the demurrer. While it was alleged in the
LSG AY 2018-2019
information that BB was a minor at the time of the commission of the
offense, the failure of the prosecutor to present evidence to prove his
minority is not a basis for the granting of the demurrer, because minority of
the accused is not an element of the crime of rape.
Be that as it may, the Court should not consider minority in rendering the
decision. After all, the failure of the prosecutor to prove the minority of AA
may only affect the imposable penalty but may not absolve him from criminal
liability.
Search and Seizure (2014)

A search warrant was issued for the purpose of looking for unlicensed
firearms in the house of Ass-asin, a notorious gun for hire. When the police
served the warrant, they also sought the assistance of barangay tanods who
were assigned to look at other portions of the premises around the house. In
a nipa hut thirty (30) meters away from the house of Ass-asin, a Barangay
tanod came upon a kilo of marijuana that was wrapped in newsprint. He took
it and this was later used by the authorities to charge Ass-asin with illegal
possession of marijuana. Ass-asin objected to the introduction of such
evidence claiming that it was illegally seized. Is the objection of Ass-asin
valid?
A: The objection is valid. The search warrant specifically designates or

describes the house as the place to be searched. Incidentally, the marijuana
was seized by the Barangay Tanod thirty (30) meters away from the house of
the accused. Since the confiscated items were found in a place other than the
one described in the search warrant, it can be considered as fruits of an
invalid warrantless search, the presentation of which as an evidence is a
violation of petitioner’s constitutional guaranty against unreasonable
searches and seizure (Ruben Del Castillo v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No.
185128, January 30, 2012). Besides, the search is also illegal because the
marijuana confiscated in the nipa hut was wrapped in a newsprint. Therefore,
the same cannot be considered validly seized in plain view (Abraham Miclat v.
People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 176077, August 31, 2011).
###

LSG AY 2018-2019

CrimPro Reviewer

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

CrimPro Reviewer

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW – MANILA PART I SUGGESTED ANSWERS TO BAR EXAM QUESTIONS

LAW STUDENT GOVERNMENT (AY 2018-2019) YEARS 1997 – 2006

Page 1 of 32 Criminal Procedure Bar Q&As 1997 - 2016

Page 2 of 32 Criminal Procedure Bar Q&As 1997 - 2016

Page 3 of 32 Criminal Procedure Bar Q&As 1997 - 2016

Page 4 of 32 Criminal Procedure Bar Q&As 1997 - 2016

SUGGESTED ANSWER: When bail is a matter of discretion:

Demurrer to Evidence; Contract of Carriage (2004) SUGGESTED ANSWER:

Page 6 of 32 Criminal Procedure Bar Q&As 1997 - 2016

SUGGESTED ANSWER: Dismissal; Failure to Prosecute (2003)

Page 7 of 32 Criminal Procedure Bar Q&As 1997 - 2016

Page 8 of 32 Criminal Procedure Bar Q&As 1997 - 2016

Page 9 of 32 Criminal Procedure Bar Q&As 1997 - 2016

Page 10 of 32 Criminal Procedure Bar Q&As 1997 - 2016

Page 11 of 32 Criminal Procedure Bar Q&As 1997 - 2016

Page 12 of 32 Criminal Procedure Bar Q&As 1997 - 2016

ANOTHER ANSWER: SUGGESTED ANSWER:

Page 13 of 32 Criminal Procedure Bar Q&As 1997 - 2016

Page 14 of 32 Criminal Procedure Bar Q&As 1997 - 2016

Page 15 of 32 Criminal Procedure Bar Q&As 1997 - 2016

Page 16 of 32 Criminal Procedure Bar Q&As 1997 - 2016

SUGGESTED ANSWER: ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:

Page 17 of 32 Criminal Procedure Bar Q&As 1997 - 2016

Page 18 of 32 Criminal Procedure Bar Q&As 1997 - 2016

Page 19 of 32 Criminal Procedure Bar Q&As 1997 - 2016

Page 20 of 32 Criminal Procedure Bar Q&As 1997 - 2016

Page 21 of 32 Criminal Procedure Bar Q&As 1997 - 2016

SUGGESTED ANSWER: SUGGESTED ANSWER:

Page 22 of 32 Criminal Procedure Bar Q&As 1997 - 2016

Page 23 of 32 Criminal Procedure Bar Q&As 1997 - 2016

Page 24 of 32 Criminal Procedure Bar Q&As 1997 - 2016

Page 25 of 32 Criminal Procedure Bar Q&As 1997 - 2016

Page 26 of 32 Criminal Procedure Bar Q&As 1997 - 2016

Trial; Speedy Trial (2007) SUGGESTED ANSWER:

Page 27 of 32 Criminal Procedure Bar Q&As 1997 - 2016

Page 28 of 32 Criminal Procedure Bar Q&As 1997 - 2016

Page 29 of 32 Criminal Procedure Bar Q&As 1997 - 2016

SUGGESTED ANSWER: SUGGESTED ANSWER:

Page 30 of 32 Criminal Procedure Bar Q&As 1997 - 2016

Search and Seizure (2014)

A: The objection is valid. The search warrant specifically designates or

Page 32 of 32 Criminal Procedure Bar Q&As 1997 - 2016

You might also like