QuAMTO

A was charge before the Sandiganbayan with a crime of plunder, a non-bailable offense,
where the court had already issued a warrant for his arrest. Without A being arrested, his
lawyer filed a Motion to Quash Arrest Warrant and to Fix Bail, arguing that the
allegations in the information did not charge the crime of plunder but a crime of
malversation, a bailable offense. The court denied the motion on the ground that it had not
yet acquire jurisdiction over the person of the accused and that the accused should be
under the custody of the court since the crime charged was non-bailable. The accused’s
lawyer counter- argued that the court can rule on the motion even if the accused was at-
large because it had jurisdiction over the subject matter of the case. According to said
lawyer, there was no need for the accused to be under the custody of the court because
what was filed was a Motion to Quash Arrest and to Fix Bail not a Petition for Bail.

a. If you are the Sandiganbayan, how will you rule on the motion?
b. If the Sandiganbayan denies the motion, what judicial remedy should the accused
undertake? (2014 Bar)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

a. If I were the Sandiganbayan, I would grant the Motion to Quash but deny the Motion to
fix bail.

Jurisprudence provides that for Motion to Quash to prosper, jurisdiction over the person
of the accused nor custody of law is required. Moreover, the Motion to fix bail is
essentially an application to bail which requires that the accused be in the custody of law.

Here, the accused did not surrender his person to the jurisdiction of the court. He is not in
the custody of law since he remains at-large. Thus, only the Motion to Quash can be
granted and not the Motion to fix bail.

b. The accused may file a motion for reconsideration. If the same would still be denied, the
accused may file a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 directly to the Supreme Court.

Governor Pedro Mario of Tarlac was charged with indirect bribery before the
Sandiganbayan for accepting a car in exchange of the award of a series of contracts for
medical supplies. The Sandiganbayan, after going over the information, found the same to
be valid and ordered the suspension of Mario. The latter contested the suspension claiming
that under the law (Sec. 13 of RA 3019) his suspension is not automatic upon filing the
information and his suspension under Sec. 13 of RA 3019 is in conflict with Sec. 5 of the
Decentralization Act of 1967 (RA 5185). The Sandiganbayan overruled Mario’s contention
stating that Mario’s suspension under the circumstances is mandatory. Is the court’s ruling
correct? Why? (2001 Bar)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes, the court ruling is correct.

Under the law, the suspension of an offender of RA 3019 is mandatory although not automatic.
The suspension would be mandatory after the determination of the validity of the information.

Here, the information was found to be valid. Hence, the suspension of Mario is proper.

Answer the following briefly: (2017 Bar)

(a) When is bail a matter of judicial discretion?

Bail is a matter of judicial discretion in the following:

1. Before conviction of the RTC for offenses punishable by death, reclusion perpetua, or
life imprisonment.
2. After conviction of the RTC for offenses not punishable by death, reclusion perpetua,
or life imprisonment.

Jose, Alberto and Romeo were charged with murder. Upon filing of the information, the
RTC judge issued the warrants for their arrest. Learning of the issuance of the warrants,
the three accused jointly filed a motion for reinvestigation and for the recall of the
warrants of arrest. On the date set for hearing of their motion, none of the accused showed
up in court for fear of being arrested. The RTC judge denied their motion because the
RTC did not acquire jurisdiction over the persons of the movants. Did the RTC rule
correctly? (2008 Bar)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

No, the RTC did not rule correctly.

In a case with similar facts, the Supreme Court held that when the accused filed their motions
and invoked the authority of the court over the case, it is deemed that they have voluntarily
surrendered their persons.

Here, the accused are deemed to have voluntarily surrendered their person with the court when
they filed their motions.

Hence, the RTC did not rule correctly.

Mariano was convicted by the RTC for raping Victoria and meted the penalty of reclusion
perpetua. While serving sentence at the National Penitentiary, Mariano and Victoria were
married. Mariano filed a motion in said court for his release from the penitentiary on his
claim that under Republic Act No. 8353, his marriage to Victoria extinguished the criminal
action against him for rape, as well as the penalty imposed on him. However, the court
denied the motion on the ground that it had lost jurisdiction over the case after its decision
had become final and executory.

a. Is the filing of the court, correct? Explain.

The filing of the court is not correct.

Jurisprudence provides that the court does not lose jurisdiction so long as its decision has
not been fully implemented and satisfied. Finality of judgment does not operate to divest
the court of its jurisdiction.

Here, the court retains the interest of ensuring that its judgment are implemented and has
the authority to issue orders for these purposes.

b. What remedy/remedies should the counsel of Mariano take to secure his proper and
most expeditious release from the National Penitentiary? Explain. (2005 Bar)

The counsel may file a petition of habeas corpus for the illegal confinement of Mariano
or a motion to nullify the execution of his sentence on the ground of that a supervening
development had occurred.

While in his Nissan Patrol and hurrying home to Quezon City from his work in 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 SUV driven by Horace
who was observed using his cellular phone at the time of the collision. Both vehicles - more
than 5 years old – no longer carried insurance other than the compulsory third party
liability insurance. Gary suffered physical injuries while his Nissan Patrol sustained
damage in excess of Php500, 000.

a. As counsel for Gary, describe the process you need to undertake starting from the point
of the incident if Gary would proceed criminally against Horace, and identify the court
with jurisdiction over the case.

b. If Gary chooses to file an independent civil action for damages, explain briefly this type
of action: its legal basis; the different approaches in pursuing this type of action; the
evidence you would need; and types of defenses you could expect. (2013 Bar

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

a. As the counsel, I would first submit Gary to medical examination so the gravity and
extent of his injuries could be determined. I would then secure a police report relative to
the incident and ask Gary to execute his sinumpaang salaysay. Thereafter, I will use said
sinumpaang salaysay to prepare for a complaint affidavit to be filed in the office of the
Prosecutor.
On his way to the PNP Academy in Silang, Cavite on board a public transport bus as a
passenger, Police Inspector Masigasig of the Valenzuela Police 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 malefactor. He disarmed the felon and while
frisking him, discovered another handgun tucked in his waist. He seized both handguns
and the malefactor was later charged with the separate crimes of robbery and illegal
possession of firearm.

a. Where should Police Inspector Masigasig bring the felon for criminal processing?
To Silang, Cavite where he is bound; to Makati where the bus actually was when the
felonies took place; or back to Valenzuela where he is stationed? Which court has
jurisdiction over the criminal cases? (2013 Bar)

Police Inspector Masigasig should bring the felon to the nearest police station or jail in
Makati City where the crime actually took place.

Moreover, when a crime is committed on a public vehicle in the course of its trip,
jurisdiction shall be with the court of any of municipality or territory to which the vehicle
had passed including places of departure and arrival.

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 foreign posting still
left her husband Dario lonely so that he also engaged in his own extramarital activities. In
one particularly exhilarating session with his girlfriend, Dario died. Within 180 days from
Dario’s death, Yvonne gives birth in Manila to a baby boy. Irate relatives of Dario
contemplate criminally charging Yvonne for adultery and they hire your law firm to
handle the case.

a. Is the contemplated criminal action a viable option to bring?

b. Is a civil action to impugn the paternity of the baby boy feasible, and if so, in what
proceeding may such issue be determined? (2013 Bar)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

a. The contemplated criminal action is not a viable option to bring.

Under the law, concubinage and adultery are one of the criminal offenses which cannot
be prosecuted de officio.

Here, Dario could have the right or capacity to bring the action of adultery since he is the
offended spouse. But since Dario died, the relatives could no longer file for such action.
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 her grandparents, they
told her to just keep quiet and not to file charges against ZZ, their son. Feeling very much
aggrieved, she asks you how her uncle ZZ can be made to answer for his crime.
a. What would your advice be? Explain.
b. Suppose the crime committed against YY by her uncle ZZ is rape, witnessed by
your mutual friend XX. But this time, YY was prevailed upon by her grandparents
not to file charges. XX asks you if she can initiate the complaint against ZZ. Would
your answer be the same? Explain. (2000 Bar)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

a. YY should file the complaint on her own and independently of her grandparents since she
is not incompetent or incapable of doing so besides her being a minor.

b. Yes, XX may initiate the complaint against ZZ.

The law provides that Rape is a crime against persons. As a public crime, it is a crime
committed against the State.

Here, XX may file a complaint for the Rape committed by ZZ.

X was arrested, in flagrante, for robbing a bank. After an investigation, he was brought
before the office of the prosecutor for inquest, but unfortunately no inquest prosecutor was
available. May the bank directly file the complaint with the proper court? If in the
affirmative, what document should be filed? (2012 Bar)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

Yes, the bank may directly file the complaint with the proper court because in the absence of an
inquest prosecutor the offended party or the peace officer in charge may directly file the
complaint with the proper court based on the affidavit executed by the offended party or
arresting officer.

The prosecution filed an information against Jose for slight physical injuries alleging the
acts constituting the offense but without any more alleging that it was committed after
Jose’s unlawful enter in the complainant’s abode. Was the information correctly prepared
by the prosecution? Why? (2001 Bar)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

No, the aggravating circumstance should have been properly alleged in the information.
Otherwise, it cannot be considered as an aggravating circumstance.
D and E were charged with homicide in one Information. Before they could be arraigned,
the prosecution moved to amend the information to exclude E therefrom. Can the court
grant the motion to amend? Why?

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

Yes, the court may grant the motion to amend provided that the offended party is notified and the
court provides reasons for granting the same.

On the facts above stated, suppose the prosecution, instead of filing a motion to amend,
moved to withdraw the information altogether and its motion was granted. Can the
prosecution re-file the information although this time for murder? Explain.

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

Yes, the prosecution can re-file the information for murder because double jeopardy has not yet
attached.

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.

a. Can the public prosecutor move for the amendment of the information to charge A
with the crime of parricide?
b. Suppose instead of moving for the amendment of the information, the public
prosecutor presented in evidence the marriage certificate without objection on the
part of the defense, could A be convicted of parricide? (1997 Bar)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

a. No, the public prosecutor cannot move for the amendment of the information to charge A
with the crime of parricide because marriage is not a supervening event.
b. No, A could not be convicted of parricide.

The Constitution provides that the accused has the right to be informed of the nature and
cause of accusation against him.

Here, the conviction of A for parricide would be a violation of his constitutional right.

While cruising on a highway, a taxicab driven by Mans hit an electric post. As a result
thereof, its passenger, Jovy, suffered serious injuries. Mans was subsequently charged
before the Municipal Trial Court with reckless imprudence resulting in serious physical
injuries. Thereafter, Jovy filed a civil action against Lourdes, the owner of the taxicab, for
breach of contract, and Mans for quasi-delict. Lourdes and Mans filed a motion to dismiss
the civil action on the ground of litis pendentia, that is, the pendency of the civil action
impliedly instituted in the criminal action for reckless imprudence resulting in serious
physical injuries. Resolve the motion with reasons. (2005 Bar)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:

The motion should be denied.

Under the law, a civil action for quasi-delict is an independent civil action which may proceed
separately and independently of the criminal action. On the other hand, criminal actions cannot
be barred by civil actions for breach of contract.

In an action for violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22, the court granted the accused’s
demurrer to evidence which he filed without leave of court. Although he was acquitted of
the crime charged, he, however, was required by the court to pay the private complainant
the face value of the check. The accused filed a Motion of Reconsideration regarding the
order to pay the face value of the check on the following grounds:

a. the demurrer to evidence applied only to the criminal aspect of the case (2001 Bar);
and
b. at the very least, he was entitled to adduce controverting evidence on the civil
liability. Resolve the Motion for Reconsideration (2003 Bar)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

The motion for reconsideration should be denied based on the following:

a. The law provides that in cases of BP blg. 22, the civil action is deemed instituted in
the criminal action. The civil action cannot proceed independently and separately
from the criminal action. Thus, it cannot be said that the demurrer to evidence applies
only to the criminal aspect of the case.
b. The accused is not entitled to adduce controverting evidence on the civil liability
since the demurrer to evidence was filed without leave of court.

Tomas was criminally charged with serious physical injuries allegedly committed against
Darvin. During the pendency of the criminal case, Darvin filed a separate civil action for
damages based on the injuries he had sustained. Tomas filed a motion to dismiss the
separate civil action on the ground of litis pendentia, pointing out that when the criminal
action was filed against him, the civil action to recover the civil liability from the offense
charged was also deemed instituted. He insisted that the basis of the separate civil action
was the very same act that gave rise to the criminal action. Rule on Tomas' motion to
dismiss, with brief reasons. (2017 Bar)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

The motion to dismiss should be denied.

Under the law, a civil action for damages based on physical injuries is an independent civil
action which may proceed separately and independently of the criminal action. Hence, the
motion should be denied.

A allegedly sold to B a parcel of land which A later also sold to X. B brought a civil action
for nullification of the second sale and asked that the sale made by A in his favour be
declared valid. A theorized that he never sold the property to B and his purported
signatures appearing in the first deed of sale were forgeries. Thereafter, an Information for
estafa was filed against A based on the same double sale that was the subject of the civil
action. A filed a “Motion for suspension of Action” in the criminal case, contending that the
resolution of the issue in civil case would necessarily be determinative of his guilt or
innocence. Is the suspension of the criminal action in order? Explain. (1999, 2000 Bar)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

Yes, the criminal action is in order.

The law provides that a prejudicial question exists when the civil actions raises an issue that is
intimately related to the issue raised in the criminal action which could determine whether the
criminal proceeding may proceed.

Here, the defense of A that his signatures were forged is a prejudicial question that should be
resolved first in order to determine whether he is guilty of estafa.

Solomon and Faith got married in 2005. In 2010, Solomon contracted a second marriage
with Hope. When Faith found out about the second marriage of Solomon and Hope, she
filed a criminal case for bigamy before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila sometime
in 2011. Meanwhile, Solomon filed a petition for declaration of nullity of his first marriage
with Faith in 2012, while the case for bigamy before the RTC of Manila is ongoing.
Subsequently, Solomon filed a motion to suspend the proceedings in the bigamy case on the
ground of prejudicial question. He asserts that the proceedings in the criminal case should
be suspended because if his first marriage with Faith will be declared null and void, it will
have the effect of exculpating him from the crime of bigamy. Decide. (2014 Bar)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

The motion should be denied because there is no prejudicial question.

Jurisprudence provides that for a prejudicial question to exist, the civil action should have first
existed before the criminal action.

Here, the criminal action preceded the civil action of annulment. The decision on the annulment
case will not determine the guilt or innocence of Solomon in the Bigamy case.

Regional Director AG of the Department of Public Works and Highways was charged with
violation of Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019 in the Office of the Ombudsman. An
administrative charge for gross misconduct arising from the transaction subject matter of
said criminal case was filed against him in the same office. The Ombudsman assigned a
team composed of investigators from the office of the Special Prosecutor and from the
Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for the Military to conduct a joint investigation of the
criminal case and the administrative case. The team of investigators recommended to the
Ombudsman that AG be preventively suspended for a period not exceeding six months on
its finding that the evidence of guilt is strong. The Ombudsman issued the said order as
recommend by the investigators. AG moved to reconsider the order on the following
grounds: a) The office of the Special Prosecutor had exclusive authority to conduct a
preliminary investigation of the criminal case; b) The order for his preventive suspension
was premature because he has yet to file his answer to the administrative complaint and
submit countervailing evidence; and c) he was career executive service officer and under
Presidential Decree No. 807 (Civil Service Law), his preventive suspension shall be for a
maximum period of three months. Resolve with reasons the motion of respondent AG.
(2005 Bar)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

The motion for reconsideration should be denied for the following reasons:

a. The office of the Special Prosecutor does not have exclusive authority to conduct a
preliminary investigation of the criminal case. The office may participate in the conduct
of investigation, but it does not have exclusive authority.
b. The order for his preventive suspension was not prematurely issued because the answer
to the administrative complaint and submission of countervailing evidence is not a
precondition.

X, an undersecretary of DENR, was charged before the Sandiganbayan for malversation of

public funds allegedly committed when he was still the Mayor of a town in Rizal. After
arraignment, the prosecution moved that X be preventively suspended. X opposed the
motion arguing that he was now occupying a position different from that which the
Information charged him and therefore, there is no more possibility that he can intimidate
witnesses and hamper the prosecution. Decide. Suppose X files a Motion to Quash
challenging the validity of the Information and the Sandiganbayan denies the same, will
there still be a need to conduct a pre- suspension hearing? Explain. (2012 Bar)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

You are the defense counsel of Angela Bituin who has been charged under RA 3019 (Anti-
Graft and Corrupt Practices Act) before the Sandiganbayan. While Angela has posted bail,
she has yet to be arraigned. Angela revealed to you that she has not been investigated for
any offense and that it was only when police officers showed up at her residence with a
warrant of arrest that she learned of the pending case against her. She wonders why she
has been charged before the Sandiganbayan when she is not in government service.
 a. What "before-trial" remedy would you invoke in Angela’s behalf to address the fact
that she had not been investigated at all, and how would you avail of this remedy?

b. What "during-trial" remedy can you use to allow an early evaluation of the
prosecution evidence without the need of presenting defense evidence; when and
how can you avail of this remedy? (2013 Bar)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

On his way to the PNP Academy in Silang, Cavite on board a public transport bus as a
passenger, Police Inspector Masigasig of the Valenzuela Police 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 malefactor. He disarmed the felon and while
frisking him, discovered another handgun tucked in his waist. He seized both handguns
and the malefactor was later charged with the separate crimes of robbery and illegal
possession of firearm. May the charges of robbery and illegal prosecution of firearm be
filed directly by the investigating prosecutor with the appropriate court without a
preliminary investigation? (2013 Bar)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

Yes, the charges may be filed directly with the appropriate court without a preliminary
investigation.

Under the Rules of Court, preliminary investigation is not required when the accused was
lawfully arrested without warrant.

Here, the offenders were validly arrested without warrant as they were caught in flagrante
delicto. Hence, the charges may be filed directly without preliminary investigation.

Engr. Magna Nakaw, the District Engineer of the DPWH in the Province of Walang
Progreso, and Mr. Pork Chop, a private contractor, were both charged in the Office of the
Ombudsman for violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act (R.A. No. 3019)
under a conspiracy theory. While the charges were undergoing investigation in the Office
of the Ombudsman, Engr. Magna Nakaw passed away. Mr. Pork Chop immediately filed a
motion to terminate the investigation and to dismiss the charges against him, arguing that
because he was charged in conspiracy with the deceased, there was no longer a conspiracy
to speak of and, consequently, any legal ground to hold him for trial had been extinguished.
Rule on the motion to terminate filed by Mr. Pork Chop, with brief reasons. (2017 Bar)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

The motion should be denied.

Jurisprudence provides that the death of a public officer, even if he is the lone public officer of
the case, does not operate to extinguish the legal ground of a case for RA 3019. The death of the
accused does not mean the conspiracy could no longer be proved.

Here, the death of Engr. Magna extinguished only his criminal liability but not the crime and
charges under RA 3019.

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 were up to no good, he darted
into a corner and ran. The occupants of the vehicle − elements from the Western Police
District − gave chase and apprehended him. The police apprehended Cicero, frisked him
and found a sachet of 0.09 gram of shabu tucked in his waist and a Swiss knife in his secret
pocket, and detained him thereafter. Is the arrest and body- search legal? (2010 Bar)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

No, the arrest and body-search is not legal.

Jurisprudence provides that a warrantless arrest must be based on a reasonable ground that a
crime has been committed or is attempted to be committed by the person sought to be arrested.

Here, the act of Cicero running on a dark alley is not a reasonable ground that Cicero committed
a crime or is attempting to commit one.

Hence, the arrest was not valid and so the search following such arrest was also invalid.

AX swindled RY in the amount P10,000 sometime in mid-2003. On the strength of the

sworn statement given by RY personally to SPO1 Juan Ramos sometime in mid-2004, and
without securing a warrant, the police officer arrested AX. Forthwith the police officer
filed with the City Prosecutor of Manila a complaint for estafa supported by RY’s sworn
statement and other documentary evidence. After due inquest, the prosecutor filed the
requisite information with the MM RTC. No preliminary investigation was conducted
either before or after the filing of the information and the accused at no time asked for
such an investigation. However, before arraignment, the accused moved to quash the
information on the ground that the prosecutor suffered from a want of authority to file the
information because of his failure to conduct a preliminary investigation before filing the
information, as required by the Rules of Court.

a. Is the warrantless arrest of AX valid?

b. Is he entitled to a preliminary investigation before the filing of the information?
Explain. (2004 Bar)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

a. No, the warrantless arrest of AX is not valid.

 Under the law, for a warrantless arrest to be lawfully effected, the person sought to be
arrest has just committed the crime, is actually committing the crime or is attempting to
commit a crime.

Here, the alleged offense was committed almost a year before. There is no reasonable
ground for SPO1 to arrest AX without a warrant. Hence, the warrantless arrest is not
valid.

b. Yes, AX is entitled to a preliminary investigation.

Under the law, an inquest proceeding may be conducted if the accused has been lawfully
arrested without warrant.

Here, the warrantless arrest of the person of AX is not valid. Hence, instead of an inquest
proceeding, AX is entitled to a preliminary investigation.

A was killed by B during a quarrel over a hostess in a nightclub. Two days after the
incident, and upon complaint of the widow of A, the police arrested B without a warrant of
arrest and searched his house without a search warrant.

a. Can the gun used by B in shooting A, which was seized during the search of the
house of B, be admitted in evidence?
b. Is the arrest of B legal?

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

a. No, the gun cannot be admitted as evidence.

Under the law, unlawfully acquired evidence are inadmissible in court.

Here, the warrantless search conducted was unlawful since it is a search incident to a
lawful arrest. The seized items from that unlawful search are inadmissible as evidence
in court.

b. No, the arrest of B is not legal.

Under the law, a warrantless arrest may be exercised if a crime has just been
committed and the person making the warrantless arrest has personal knowledge of
the crime committed.

Here, the crime was committed two days before the arrest. The officers could have
the time to secure first a warrant before arresting B. Moreover, the police do not have
personal knowledge of the crime since they were not in the scene when it happened.
In a buy-bust operation, the police operatives arrested the accused and seized from him a
sachet of shabu and an unlicensed firearm. The accused was charged in two Informations,
one for violation of the “Dangerous Drug Act”, as amended, and another for illegal
possession of firearms. The accused filed an action for recovery of the firearm in another
court against the police officers with an application for the issuance of a writ of replevin.
He alleged in his complaint that he was a military informer who had been issued a written
authority to carry said firearm. The police officers moved to dismiss the complaint on the
ground that the subject firearm was in custodia legis. The court denied the motion and
instead issued the writ of replevin.

a. Was the seizure of the firearm valid?

b. Was the denial of the motion to dismiss proper? (2003 Bar)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

a. Yes, the seizure of the firearm was valid because it was seized in the course of a valid
arrest. No search warrant was required to perform the seizure in cases of valid
warrantless arrest.
b. No, the denial of the motion is not proper. The action for recovery of firearm should have
been filed with the court having jurisdiction of the criminal case. The court does not have
the authority to issue a writ of replevin.

FG was arrested without a warrant by policemen while he was walking in a busy street.
After the preliminary investigation, he was charged with rape and the corresponding
information was filed in the RTC. On arraignment, he pleaded not guilty. Trial on the
merits ensued. The court rendered judgment convicting him. On appeal, FG claims that
the judgment is void because he was illegally arrested. If you were the Solicitor General,
counsel, for the People of the Philippines, how would you refute said claim? (2000 Bar)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

I would refute the claim by contending that FG waived his right to question the legality of his
arrest when he entered his plea without raising the issue of his arrest.

Boy Maton, a neighborhood tough guy, was arrested by a police officer on suspicion that he
was keeping prohibited drugs in his clutch bag. When Boy Maton was searched
immediately after the arrest, the officer found and recovered 10 sachets of shabu neatly
tucked in the inner linings of the clutch bag. At the time of his arrest, Boy Maton was
watching a basketball game being played in the town plaza, and he was cheering for his
favorite team. He was subsequently charged with illegal possession of dangerous drugs, and
he entered a plea of not guilty when he was arraigned. During the trial, Boy Maton moved
for the dismissal of the information on the ground that the facts revealed that he had been
illegally arrested. He further moved for the suppression of the evidence confiscated from
him as being the consequence of the illegal arrest, hence, the fruit of the poisonous tree.
The trial court, in denying the motions of Boy Maton, explained that at the time the
motions were filed Boy Maton had already waived the right to raise the issue of the legality
of the arrest. The trial court observed that, pursuant to the Rules of Court, Boy Maton, as
the accused, should have assailed the validity of the arrest before entering his plea to the
information. Hence, the trial court opined that any adverse consequence of the alleged
illegal arrest had also been equally waived. Comment on the ruling of the trial court.

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

The denial of the motion to dismiss the information was proper.

The Court held that the accused is deemed to have waived his right to question the validity of an
arrest if he enters his plea on arraignment without raising the issue. Here, it was late for Boy
Maton to question the validity of the warrantless arrest since he was already arraigned.

However, the denial of the motion to suppress evidence is not proper.

The Court held that waiver of the illegal arrest does not equate to a waiver of an invalid search.
Moreover, the Constitution provides that any evidence obtained in violation of the right against
unreasonable search and seizure are inadmissible in court.

Here, the evidence were acquired through an invalid search since the arrest preceding thereto
was invalid.

Under Section 5, Rule 113, a warrantless arrest is allowed when an offense has just been
committed and the peace officer has probable cause to believe, based on his personal
knowledge of facts and circumstances, that the person to be arrested has committed it. A
policeman approaches you for advice and asks you how he will execute a warrantless arrest
against a murderer who escaped after killing a person. The policeman arrived two (2)
hours after the killing and a certain Max was allegedly the killer per information given by a
witness. He asks you to clarify the following:

a. How long after the commission of the crime can he still execute the warrantless arrest?
b. What does “personal knowledge of the facts and circumstances that the person to be
arrested committed it” mean? (2016 Bar)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

a. There must be immediacy between the time of the commission of the crime and the
warrantless arrest. If there exists a reasonable lapse of time between the two periods, the
warrantless arrest would be invalid. The measure of such time varies from case to case. In
one case, the Court held that an accused was validly arrested without warrant 3 hours
after the commission of the crime. Also, the Court upheld the validity of the warrantless
arrest in one case where the accused was arrested on the same day of the commission of
the crime.
 b. “Personal knowledge of the facts and circumstances that the person to be arrested
committed it” means that the police officer or any peace officer or person sought to
execute a warrantless arrest must have within their actual perception, or personal
examination or observation the matters related to the supposed crime.

An information for murder was filed against Rapido. The RTC judge, after personally
evaluating the prosecutor's resolution, documents and parties' affidavits submitted by the
prosecutor, found probable cause and issued a warrant of arrest. Rapido's lawyer
examined the rollo of the case and found that it only contained the copy of the information,
the submissions of the prosecutor and a copy of the warrant of arrest. Immediately,
Rapido's counsel filed a motion to quash the arrest warrant for being void, citing as
grounds:

1. The judge before issuing the warrant did not personally conduct a searching
examination
of the prosecution witnesses in violation of his client's constitutionally mandated rights;
2. There was no prior order finding probable cause before the judge issued the arrest
warrant.

May the warrant of arrest be quashed on the grounds cited by Rapido's counsel? State
your reason for each ground. (2015 Bar)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

No, the warrant of arrest may not be quashed on the grounds cited by Rapido’s counsel for the
following reasons.

1. The judge should conduct personal examination of the circumstances surrounding the
case before issuing a warrant of arrest. This personal determination of probable cause of
the Judge does not limit him to rely on the report of the investigating prosecutor. The law
does not require that a judge conduct a searching examination of the prosecution
witnesses.
2. There is no law requiring that an order be issued for the purpose of finding probable
cause before the judge could issue a warrant.

After Alma had started serving her sentence for violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 (BP
22), she filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus, citing Vaca v. CA where the sentence of
imprisonment of a party found guilty of violation of BP 22 was reduced to a fine equal to
double the amount of the check involved. She prayed that her sentence be similarly
modified and that she be immediately released from detention. In the alternative, she
prayed that pending determination on whether the Vaca ruling applies to her, she be
allowed to post bail pursuant to Rule 102, Sec.14, which provides that if a person is lawfully
imprisoned or restrained on a charge of having committed an offense not punishable by
death, he may be admitted to bail in the discretion of the court. Accordingly, the trial court
allowed Alma to post bail and then ordered her release. In your opinion, is the order of the
trial court correct?

a. Under Rule 102?

b. Under the Rules of Criminal Procedure?

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

a. No, the trial court is incorrect because the writ of habeas corpus cannot be used to release
a person already serving his sentence.
b. No, the trial court is incorrect because an accused cannot post bail after the judgment has
become final and that no admission to bail shall be granted after the accused has begun
serving the sentence.

When is bail a matter of right and when is it a matter of discretion?

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

Bail is a matter of right: a. before or after conviction of the MeTC, MTCC, MTC and MCTC; b.
Before conviction of the RTC of an offense not punishable by death, reclusion perpetua or life
imprisonment; and c. in cases of capital offenses when the evidence of guilt is not strong.

Bail is a matter of discretion: a. Before conviction of the RTC for offenses punishable by death,
reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment; and b. After conviction of the RTC for offenses not
punishable by death, reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment.

When the accused is entitled as a matter of right to bail, may the court refuse to grant him
bail on the ground that there exists a high degree of probability the he will abscond or
escape? Explain. (1999 Bar)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

No, the court cannot refuse to grant of bail to the accused who is entitled as a matter of right to
be admitted to bail. If there exists a high degree of probability that accused will abscond, the
proper remedy is to increase the amount of bail which must also not be excessive.

At the Public Attorney's Office station in Taguig where you are assigned, your work
requires you to act as public defender at the local Regional Trial Court and to handle cases
involving indigents. In one other case, an indigent mother seeks assistance for her 14-year
old son who has been arrested and detained for malicious mischief. Would an application
for bail be the appropriate remedy or is there another remedy available? Justify your
chosen remedy and outline the appropriate steps to take. (2013 Bar)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

Yes, bail is an appropriate remedy for the provisional liberty of the accused.
Under the law, bail is a matter of right before or after conviction of the first level court which has
jurisdiction over the case. Here, the 14 year old boy may post bail as a matter of right.

A was charged with murder in the lower court. His Petition for Bail was denied after a
summary hearing on the ground that the prosecution had established a strong evidence of
guilt. No Motion for Reconsideration was filed from the denial of the Petition for Bail.
During the reception of the evidence of the accused, the accused reiterated his petition for
bail on the ground that the witnesses so far presented by the accused had shown that no
qualifying aggravating circumstance attended the killing. The court denied the petition on
the grounds that it had already ruled that: (i) the evidence of guilt is strong; (ii) the
resolution for the Petition for Bail is solely based on the evidence presented by the
prosecution; and (iii) no Motion for Reconsideration was filed from the denial of the
Petition for Bail.

a. If you are the Judge, how will you resolve the incident?
b. Suppose the accused is convicted of the crime of homicide and the accused filed a
Notice of Appeal, is he entitled to bail? (2014 Bar)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

a. I will grant the second motion to post bail.

The law provides that bail is a matter of right when the charge is for a capital offense, but
the evidence of guilt is not strong.

Here, the evidence against the accused is not strong because the prosecution failed to
present the aggravating circumstance that would qualify the crime. Hence, the second
motion to post bail should be granted.

b. Yes, the accused may be entitled to bail subject to the sound discretion of the court
because the trial court’s decision changed the nature of the offense from non-bailable to
bailable.

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 whether the evidence of D’s guilt was
strong for purposes of bail. Is the ruling correct? Why? (2002 Bar)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

No, the ruling is not correct.

Under the law, the prosecution is only required to present evidence as much as necessary to
prove that the guilt of the accused is strong. Here, the trial court ordered the prosectution to
present its evidence in full.
In an information charging them of Murder, policemen A, B and C were convicted of
Homicide. A appealed from the decision but was denied. Finally, the Court of Appeals
rendered a decision acquitting A on the ground that the evidence pointed to the NPA as the
killers of the victim.

a. Was the Court of Appeal’s denial of A’s application for bail proper?
b. Can B and C be benefited by the decision of the Court of Appeals? (1998 Bar)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

a. Yes, the Court of Appeal’s denial of A’s application for bail is proper. The court has the
discretion to do so. Even if he was convicted for homicide at the trial court, he could still
be convicted of murder on his appeal.
b. Yes, B and C can be benefited by the decision of the Court of Appeals. B and C could be
benefited even if they did not appeal the decision because the latter decision is favorable
to them.

If an information was filed in the RTC-Manila charging D with homicide and he was
arrested in Quezon City, in what court or courts may he apply for bail? Explain. (2002
Bar)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

D may apply for bail in RTC-Manila where the information was filed or with a court in Quezon
City where he was arrested, or if no judge thereof is available, with any first-level courts judge.

In what forms may bail be given?

Bail may be given in the following forms:

1. Surety Bond
2. Cash Bond
3. Property Bond
4. Recognizance

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 alleging that Juan Kwan
is the subject of an arrest warrant duly issued by the proper criminal court of State XX in
connection with a criminal case for tax evasion and fraud before his return to RP as a
balikbayan. Petitioner prays that Juan be extradited and delivered to the proper
authorities of State XX for trial, and that to prevent Juan’s flight in the interim, a warrant
for his immediate arrest be issued. Before the RTC could act on the petition for extradition,
Juan filed before it an urgent motion, in sum praying (1) that 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. Should the court grant or deny Juan’s prayer?
Reason.

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

The Court may allow Juan to post bail subject to its discretion.

The Court has previously ruled that the rules on bail cannot be applied in extradition proceedings
since such rule is only applicable to our criminal proceedings. However, with the recent
development in International law, anchored with the aim of protecting human rights, an extradite
may be allowed to post bail.

May the Court require a witness to post bail? Explain your answer.

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

Yes, the court may require a witness to post bail if he is a material witness and bail is needed to
secure his appearance in court.

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 valid clearance to leave the
hospital. He filed a petition for bail saying therein that he be considered as having placed
himself under the jurisdiction of the court. May the court entertain his petition? Why or
why not? (2012 Bar)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

Yes, a person is deemed to be under the custody of law if he is arrested or he voluntarily

surrenders himself to the jurisdiction of the court. The accused here may be considered to be
under the custody of law even if he is still in the hospital if he clearly submits himself, through
written notice, that he surrenders himself.

Paz was awakened by a commotion coming from a condo unit next to hers. Alarmed, she
called up the nearby police station. PO1 Remus and P02 Romulus proceeded to the condo
unit identified by Paz. PO 1 Remus knocked at the door and when a man opened the door,
PO1 Remus and his companions introduced themselves as police officers. The man readily
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. Asked by P02 Romulus what
happened, the lady responded that she was beaten up by Oasis Jung. The police officers
arrested Oasis Jung and brought him and the young lady back to the police station. PO1
Remus took the young lady's statement who identified herself as AA. She narrated that she
is a sixteen-year-old high school student; that previous to the incident, she had sexual
intercourse with Oasis Jung at least five times on different occasions 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 jail. After the inquest proceeding, the public
prosecutor filed an information for Violation of R.A. No. 9262 (The VAWC Law) for
physical violence and five separate informations for violation of R.A. No. 7610 (The Child
Abuse Law). 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 arraignment.

a. Did the court properly impose that bail condition?

No, the court did not properly impose the bail condition.

The Rules on Procedure does not provide that arraignment is a precondition to the hearing for an
application to bail. An accused may apply for admission to bail as soon as he is deprived of his
liberty by virtue of an arrest or voluntary surrender.

b. After his release from detention on bail, can Oasis Jung still question the validity of his
arrest? (2015 Bar)

Yes, Jung can still question the validity of his arrest as long as he has not yet entered his
plea. The law provides that the application for bail does not bar the accused from
questioning the validity of the arrest.

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 trial commenced, he asked the court to
allow him to change his plea of not guilty to a plea of guilty but only to estafa involving
P5,000.00. Can the court allow D to change his plea? Why? (2002 Bar)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

No, the court cannot allow D to change his plea.

The law provides that an accused may enter a plea to a lesser offense if such offense is
necessarily included to the offense charged.

Here, estafa is an entirely different crime. Hence, the court cannot allow D to change his plea.

A criminal information is filed in court charging Anselmo with homicide. Anselmo files a
motion to quash the information on the ground that no preliminary investigation was
conducted. Will the motion be granted? Why or why not? (2009 Bar)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

No, the motion will not be granted.

Under the Rules of Criminal Procedure, the absence of a preliminary investigation is not one of
the grounds for a motion to quash. Preliminary investigation is a statutory right which can be
waived.
Pedrito and Tomas, Mayor and Treasurer, respectively, of the Municipality of San Miguel,
Leyte, are charged before the Sandiganbayan for violation of Section 3 (e), Republic Act
No. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act). The information alleges, among others,
that the two conspired in the purchase of several units of computer through personal
canvass instead of a public bidding, causing undue injury to the municipality. Before
arraignment, the accused moved for reinvestigation of the charge, which the court granted.
After reinvestigation, the Office of the Special Prosecutor filed an amended information
duly signed and approved by the Special Prosecutor, alleging the same delictual facts, but
with an additional allegation that the accused gave 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 who filed the same had no authority to do so. Resolve the motion to quash with
reasons.

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

The motion to quash should be granted.

Under the law, the Special Prosecutor may conduct the Preliminary Investigation under the direct
control and supervision of the ombudsman. In the absence of a clear delegation of authority of
the ombudsman to the Special Prosecutor, the latter shall have no authority to file an
information.

BC is charged with illegal possession of firearms under an Information signed by a

Provincial Prosecutor. After arraignment but before pre-trial, BC found out that the
Provincial Prosecutor had no authority to sign the information as it was the City
Prosecutor who has such authority. During the pre-trial, BC moves that the case against
him be dismissed on the ground that the Information is defective because the officer
signing it lacked the authority to do so. The Provincial Prosecutor opposes the motion on
the 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 opposition of the Provincial
Prosecutor? (2000 Bar)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

I would argue that the motion to quash be granted because when the officer had no authority to
file the information, in effect, the court did not acquire jurisdiction over the subject matter and
over the person of the accused.

A motion to quash grounded on the lack of jurisdiction cannot be waived and may be raised in
any proceeding.

Rodolfo is charged with possession of unlicensed firearms in an Information filed in the

RTC. It was alleged therein that Rodolfo was in possession of two unlicensed firearms:
a .45 calibre and a .32 calibre. Under Republic Act No. 8294, possession of an
unlicensed .45 calibre gun is punishable by prison mayor in its minimum period and a fine
of P30,000.00, while possession of an unlicensed .32 calibre gun is punishable by prison
correctional in its maximum period and a fine of not less than P15,000.00. As counsel of the
accused, you intend to file a motion to quash the Information. What ground or grounds
should you invoke? Explain. (2005 Bar)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

For a motion to quash to prosper, I would invoke the following grounds:

1. That the information charged more than one offense;

2. That the RTC has no jurisdiction over the second offense which is punishable by prision
correctional. The MTC has original exclusive jurisdiction over offenses punishable by
imprisonment of not more than 6 years.

The Information against Roger Alindogan for the crime of acts of lasciviousness under Art.
336 of the Revised Penal Code avers:

“That on or about 10:30 o’ clock in the evening of February 1, 2010 at Barangay Matalaba,
Imus, Cavite and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named
accused, with lewd and unchaste design, through force and intimidation, did then and
there, wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously commit sexual abuse on his daughter, Rose
Domingo, a minor of 11 years old, either by raping her or committing acts of lasciviousness
on her, against her will and consent to her damage and prejudice.

ACTS CONTRARY TO LAW.”

The accused wants to have the case dismissed because he believes that the charge is
confusing and the information is defective. What ground or grounds can he raise in moving
for the quashal of the information? Explain. (2016 Bar)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

The information should be quashed based on the following grounds:

1. The facts charged in the information do not constitute an offense: the Court held in one
case that an information which contains “either by raping her or committing acts of
lasciviousness on her” does not actually constitute an offense for it is unclear as to what
acts were really done to commit an offense.
2. That the information does not substantially conform to the prescribed form.
3. That the information charges more than one offense which precludes the accused to fully
understand the nature and causes of accusation against him and is therefore a violation of
his constitutional right.

SPO1 CNC filed with the MTC in Quezon City (MeTC-QC) a sworn written statement
duly subscribed by him, charging RGR (an actual resident of Cebu 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 was raffled thereupon issued an order declaring
that the case shall be governed by the Rule on Summary Procedure in Criminal cases. Soon
thereafter, the Judge ordered the dismissal of the case for the reason that it was not
commenced by information, as required by said Rule. Sometime later, based on the same
facts giving rise to the slight physical injuries case, the City Prosecutor filed with the same
MeTC-QC an information for attempted homicide against the same RGR. In due time,
before arraignment, RGR moved to quash the information on the ground of double
jeopardy and after due hearing, the Judge granted his motion.

a. Was the dismissal of the complaint for slight physical injuries proper?
b. Was the grant of the motion to quash the attempted homicide information, correct?
(2004 Bar)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

a. Yes, the dismissal was proper. In chartered cities and Metropolitan Cities, a case can only
be commenced by an information.
b. The grant of the motion to quash is not correct. Jurisprudence provides that double
jeopardy may attach only if there was a valid indictment of the prior offense.

Here, there was no valid indictment since the first case was dismissed.

D was charged with slight physical injuries in the MTC. He pleaded not guilty and went to
trial. After the prosecution had presented its evidence, the trial court set the continuation
of the hearing on another date. On the date scheduled for hearing, the prosecutor failed to
appear, whereupon the court, on motion of D, dismissed the case. A few minutes later, the
prosecutor arrived and opposed the dismissal of the case. The court reconsidered its order
and directed D to present his evidence. Before the next date of trial came, however, D
moved that the last order be set aside on the ground that the reinstatement of the case had
placed him twice in jeopardy. Acceding to this motion, the court again dismissed the case.
The prosecutor then filed an Information in the RTC, charging D with direct assault based
on the same facts alleged in the information for slight physical injuries but with the added
allegation that D inflicted the injuries out of resentment for what the complainant had done
in the performance of his duties as chairman of the board of election inspectors. D moved
to quash the second information on the ground that its filing had placed him in double
jeopardy. How should D’s motion to quash be resolved? (2002 Bar)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

The motion to quash should be granted on the ground of double jeopardy because the first
offense charged is necessarily included in the second offense charged.

For the multiple stab wounds sustained by the victim, Noel was charged with frustrated
homicide in the RTC. Upon arraignment, he entered a plea of guilty to said crime. Neither
the court nor the prosecution was aware that the victim had died two days earlier on
account of his stab wounds. Because of his guilty plea, Noel was convicted of frustrated
homicide and meted the corresponding penalty. When the prosecution learned of the
victim’s death, it filed within 15 days therefrom a motion to amend the information to
upgrade the charge from frustrated homicide to consummated homicide. Noel opposed the
motion claiming that the admission of the amended information would place him in double
jeopardy. Resolve the motion with reasons. (2005 Bar)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

The amended information does not place the accused in double jeopardy. The Rules of Court
provide that the conviction of the accused does not bar subsequent prosecution for an offense
which is necessarily included in the first offense when: 1. Supervening events occur that led to
the graver offense; and 2. That the facts constituting the graver offense were discovered only
after the accused entered his plea.

McJolly is a trouble-maker of sorts, always getting into brushes with the law. In one
incident, he drove his Humvee recklessly, hitting a pedicab which sent its driver and
passengers in different directions. The pedicab driver died, while two (2) of the passenger
suffered slight physical injuries. Two (2) Informations were then filed against McJolly.
One, for Reckless Imprudence Resulting in Homicide and Damage to Property, and two,
for Reckless Imprudence Resulting in Slight Physical Injures. The latter case was
scheduled for arraignment earlier, on which occasion McJolly immediately pleaded guilty.
He was meted out the penalty of public censure. A month later, the case for reckless
imprudence resulting on homicide was also set for arraignment. Instead of pleading,
McJolly interposed the defense of double jeopardy. Resolve. (2014 Bar)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:

McJolly correctly interposed the defense of double jeopardy. The law provides that reckless
imprudence is in itself a quasi-offense and not just a means of committing a crime. Hence, the
conviction on the first reckless imprudence cases for the same acts, necessarily bars the
subsequent prosecution for the same acts.

Juancho entered a plea of guilty when he was arraigned under an information for
homicide. To determine the penalty to be imposed, the trial court allowed Juancho to
present evidence proving any mitigating circumstance in his favor. Juancho was able to
establish complete self- defense. Convinced by the evidence adduced by Juancho, the trial
court rendered a verdict of acquittal. May the Prosecution assail the acquittal without
infringing the constitutional guarantee against double jeopardy in favor of Juancho?
Explain your answer. (2017 Bar)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

Yes, the Prosecution may assail the acquittal without infringing the constitutional guarantee
against double jeopardy.

Under the Rules of Court, double jeopardy may only attach if there is a valid plea entered into by
the accused. Moreover, the same rules provide that when an accused pleads guilty but presents
exculpatory evidence, the previous plea shall be withdrawn and plea of guilty shall be entered
into.

Here, the accused plead guilty and presented exculpatory evidence. His plea should have been
withdrawn and a plea of non-guilty should have been entered into. However, it was not done.
Since there is no standing plea, double jeopardy will not attach even if the prosecution would
assail the acquittal.

In a prosecution for robbery against D, the prosecutor moved for the postponement of the
first scheduled hearing on the ground that he had lost his records of the case. The court
granted the motion but, when the new date of trial arrived, the prosecutor, alleging that he
could not locate his witnesses, moved for the dismissal of the case. If D’s counsel does not
object, may the court grant the motion of the prosecutor? Why? (2002 Bar)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

No, because a case cannot be provisionally dismissed without the express consent of the accused
and with notice to the offended party.

Paz was awakened by a commotion coming from a condo unit next to hers. Alarmed, she
called up the nearby police station. PO1 Remus and P02 Romulus proceeded to the condo
unit identified by Paz. PO 1 Remus knocked at the door and when a man opened the door,
PO1 Remus and his companions introduced themselves as police officers. The man readily
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. Asked by P02 Romulus what
happened, the lady responded that she was beaten up by Oasis Jung. The police officers
arrested Oasis Jung and brought him and the young lady back to the police station. PO1
Remus took the young lady's statement who identified herself as AA. She narrated that she
is a sixteen-year-old high school student; that previous to the incident, she had sexual
intercourse with Oasis Jung at least five times on different occasions 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 jail. After the inquest proceeding, the public
prosecutor filed an information for Violation of R.A. No. 9262 (The VAWC Law) for
physical violence and five separate informations for violation of R.A. No. 7610 (The Child
Abuse Law). 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 arraignment.

Before arraignment, Oasis Jung's lawyer moved to quash the other four separate
informations for violation of the child abuse law invoking the single larceny rule. Should
the motion to quash be granted? (2015 Bar)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

No, the motion to quash should not be granted.

Jurisprudence provides that each criminal act in violation of RA No. 9262 is based on different
criminal intent and impulse.
Hence, the single larceny rule cannot apply on this case.

Lilio filed a complaint in the MTC of Lanuza for the recovery of a sum of money against
Juan. The latter filed his answer to the complaint serving a copy thereof on Lilio. After the
filing of the answer of Juan, whose duty is it to have the case set for pre-trial? Why? (2001
Bar)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

The plaintiff has the duty to have the case set for pre-trial because the plaintiff has the duty to
prosecute and is also well-aware of the date the last pleading has been filed.

Mayor TM was charged of malversation through falsification of official documents.

Assisted by Atty. OP as counsel de parte during pre-trial, he signed together with
Ombudsman Prosecutor TG a “Joint Stipulation of Facts 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, he was substituted by Atty. QR as defense counsel. Atty
QR forthwith filed a motion to withdraw the “Joint Stipulation,” alleging that it is
prejudicial to the accused because it contains, inter alia, the statement that the “Defense
admitted all the documentary evidence of the Prosecution,” thus leaving the accused little
or no room to defend himself, and violating his right against self-incrimination. Should the
court grant or deny QR’s motion? Reason. (2004 Bar)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The court should deny the motion.

Jurisprudence provides that if in the pre-trial agreement signed by the accused and his counsel,
the accused admits the documentary evidence of the prosecution, the same does not mean that his
right against self-incrimination is waived.

Enumerate the requisites of a "trial in absentia" and a "promulgation of judgment in

absentia" (1997, 1998, 2010 Bar)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

The requisites for a valid trial in absentia are:

1. The arraignment of the accused;

2. His due notification of the trial; and
3. His unjustifiable failure to appear during trial.

The requisites for a valid promulgation of judgment:

1. A valid notice of promulgation of judgment;

 2. Said notice was duly furnished to the accused personally or thru counsel;
3. Accused failed to appear on the scheduled date of promulgation despite due notice;
4. Such judgment be recorded in the criminal docket;
5. A copy of said judgment be furnished to the accused or his counsel.

If an accused who was sentenced to death escapes, is there still a legal necessity for the
Supreme Court to review the decision of conviction? (1998 Bar)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

Yes, decisions providing for capital punishment shall be subject to the automatic review of the
Supreme Court.

At the Public Attorney's Office station in Taguig where you are assigned, your work
requires you to act as public defender at the local Regional Trial Court and to handle cases
involving indigents.

a. In one criminal action for qualified theft where you are the defense attorney, you learned
that the woman accused has been in detention for six months, yet she has not been to a
courtroom nor seen a judge. What remedy would you undertake to address the situation
and what forum would you use to invoke this relief?

After the prosecution had rested and made its formal offer of evidence, with the court
admitting all of the prosecution evidence, the accused filed a demurrer to evidence with
leave of court. The prosecution was allowed to comment thereon. Thereafter, the court
granted the demurrer, finding that the accused could not have committed the offense
charged. If the prosecution files a motion for reconsideration on the ground that the court
order granting the demurrer was not in accord with the law and jurisprudence, will the
motion prosper? Explain your answer. (2009 Bar)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

No, the motion will not prosper.

Under the law, the granting of a demurrer to evidence effectively dismisses the case which
results to the accused’s acquittal. This means that the judgment of acquittal is immediately
executory and not subject to appeal, otherwise double jeopardy would set in.

Facing a charge of Murder, X filed a petition for bail. The petition was opposed by the
prosecution but after hearing the court granted bail to X. On the first scheduled hearing
the merits, the prosecution manifested that it was not adducing additional evidence and
that it was resting its case. X filed a demurrer to evidence without leave of court but it was
denied by the court.

a. Did the court have the discretion to deny the demurrer to evidence under the
circumstances mentioned above?
 b. If the answer to the preceding question is in the affirmative can X adduce evidence
in his defense after the denial of his demurrer to evidence?
c. Without further proceeding and on the sole basis of the evidence of the prosecution,
can the court legally convict X for Murder? (1998 Bar)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

a. Yes, the court has the jurisdiction to deny the demurrer to evidence because although the
presented evidence of the prosecution during hearing for bail was not strong to prove the
guilt of the accused, without evidence for the defense, it can be sufficient basis for
conviction.
b. No, X cannot adduce evidence in his defense because he filed the demurrer to evidence
without leave of court.
c. Yes, without evidence from the accused, the evidence of the prosecution can be treated as
prima facie evidence of guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

The information for illegal possession of firearm filed against the accused specifically
alleged that he had no license or permit to possess the calibre .45 pistol mentioned therein.
In its evidence-in-chief, the prosecution established the fact that the subject firearm was
lawfully seized by the police from the possession of the accused that is, while the pistol was
tucked at his waist in plain view, without the accused being able to present any license or
permit to possess the firearm. The prosecution on such evidence rested its case and within a
period of five days therefrom, the accused filed a demurrer to evidence, in sum contending
that the prosecution evidence has not established the guilt of the accused beyond
reasonable doubt and so prayed that he be acquitted of the offense charged. The trial court
denied the demurrer to evidence and deemed the accused as having waived his right to
present evidence and submitted the case for judgment on the basis of the prosecution
evidence. In due time, the court rendered judgment finding the accused guilty of the
offense charged beyond reasonable doubt and accordingly imposing on him the penalty
prescribed therefore. Is the judgment of the trial court valid and proper? Reason (2001,
2004 Bar)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

AA, a twelve-year-old girl, while walking alone met BB, a teenage boy who befriended her.
Later, BB brought AA to a nearby shanty where he raped her. The Information for rape
filed against BB states:

"On or about October 30, 2015, in the City of S.P. and within the jurisdiction of this
Honorable Court, the accused, a minor, fifteen (15) years old with lewd design and by
means of force, violence and intimidation, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully and
feloniously had sexual intercourse with AA, a minor, twelve (12) years old against the
latter's will and consent."
At the trial, the prosecutor called to the witness stand AA as his first witness and
manifested that he be allowed to ask leading questions in conducting his direct examination
pursuant to the Rule on the Examination of a Child Witness. BB's counsel objected on the
ground that the prosecutor has not conducted a competency examination on the witness, a
requirement before the rule cited can be applied in the case.

Xxx

After the prosecution had rested its case, BB's counsel filed with leave a demurrer to
evidence, seeking the dismissal of the case on the ground that the prosecutor failed to
present any evidence on BB' s minority as alleged in the Information. Should the court
grant the demurrer? (2015 Bar)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

No, the court should not grant the demurrer.

The law provides that demurrer to evidence may only be resorted to if the prosecution failed to
prove the material elements of the crime charged.

Here, minority is not an essential element of rape. If minority is proven or not, the effect will not
be on the merits of the case but only on the imposable penalty.

Before the arraignment for the crime of murder, the private complainant executed an
Affidavit of Desistance stating that she was not sure if the accused was the man who killed
her husband. The public prosecutor filed a Motion to Quash the Information on the ground
that with private complainant’s desistance, he did not have evidence sufficient to convict
the accused. On 02 January 2001, the court without further proceedings granted the
motion and provisionally dismissed the case. The accused gave his express consent to the
provisional dismissal of the case. The offended party was notified of the dismissal but she
refused to give her consent. Subsequently, the private complainant urged the public
prosecutor to re- file the murder charge because the accused failed to pay the consideration
which he had promised for the execution of the Affidavit of Desistance.

The public 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 ground that the
provisional dismissal of the case had already become permanent.

a. Was the provisional dismissal of the case proper?

b. Resolve the Motion to Quash. (2003 Bar)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

a. Yes, the provisional dismissal of the case was proper because the accused gave his
consent thereto and the offended party was duly notified of the said provisional dismissal.
 b. The Motion to Quash should be denied because while the provisional dismissal has
become permanent, the period to file for a murder case has not yet prescribed. Double
Jeopardy will not attach because the case was dismissed even before the accused could
enter his plea.

X, the accused in a homicide case before the RTC, Dagupan City, was personally notified of
the promulgation of judgment in his case set for 10 December 1996. On said date, X was
not present as he had to attend to the trial of another criminal case against him in Tarlac,
Tarlac. The trial court denied the motion of the counsel of X to postpone the promulgation.
Can the trial court also order the arrest of X? (1997 Bar)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

No, the trial court cannot order for the arrest X because his absence is with justifiable reason
because he attended another trial in Tarlac.

AX was charged before the YY RTC with theft of jewelry valued at P20,000.00, punishable
with imprisonment of up to 10 years of prison mayor under the Revised Penal Code. After
trial, he was convicted of the offense charged, notwithstanding that the material facts duly
established during the trial showed that the offense committed was estafa, punishable by
imprisonment of up to eight years of prison mayor under the said Code. No appeal having
been taken therefrom, said judgment of conviction became final. Is the judgment of
conviction valid? Is the said judgment reviewable thru a special civil action for certiorari?
Reason. (2004 Bar)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

The judgment of conviction is valid because the court has jurisdiction to promulgate judgment.
However, the judgment was blatantly erroneous because the evidence was for estafa yet the
judgment is for theft. These crimes have entirely different elements to prove and one crime does
not necessarily include the other.

The judgment may be reviewed through a petition for certiorari alleging grave abuse of
discretion.

Ludong, Balatong, and Labong were charged with murder. After trial, the court
announced that the case was considered submitted for decision. Subsequently, the Clerk of
Court issued the notices of promulgation of judgment which were duly received. On
promulgation day, Ludong and his lawyer appeared. The lawyers of Balatong and Labong
appeared but without their clients and failed to satisfactorily explain their absence when
queried by the court. Thus, the judge ordered that the judgment be entered in the criminal
docket and copies be furnished their lawyers. The lawyers of Ludong, Balatong, and
Labong filed within the reglementary period of Joint Motion for Reconsideration. The
court favorably granted the motion of Ludong downgrading his conviction from murder to
homicide but denied the motion as regards Balatong and Labong.
 a. Was the court correct in taking cognizance of the Joint Motion for Reconsideration?
b. Can Balatong and Labong appeal their conviction in case Ludong accepts his
conviction for homicide? (2014 Bar)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

a. The court was incorrect in taking cognizance of the Joint Motion for Reconsideration.

The law provides that when the accused fails to give a justifiable reason of his absence
during the promulgation of judgment, he shall lose the remedies against the judgment and
the court shall order for his arrest.

b. No, Balatong and Labong cannot appeal their conviction because they lose such remedy
when they failed to provide justifiable reasons for their absence.

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) Chinese nationals, Ho Pia and
Sio Pao. PDEA Director Shabunot wants to 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.

a. Where can he file an application for search warrant?

b. What documents should he prepare in his application for search warrant?
c. Describe the procedure that should be taken by the judge on the application.

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

a. PDEA Director can file an application for search warrant in any court within the judicial
region where the crime was committed.
b. He should prepare a petition for search warrant and attached thereto sworn statements
and affidavits.
c. The judge should personally examine the complaint and witnesses, in writing and under
oath through searching questions and answers, before issuing the search warrant. If the
judge is satisfied with the facts and believes probable cause exists, he may issue the
search warrant.

Suppose the judge issues the search warrant worded in this way:

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES Plaintiff

-versus-
Ho Pia and Sio Pao, Accused.

Criminal Case No. 007 for Violation of R.A. 9165

x----------------------x TO ANY PEACE OFFICER

Greetings:
It appearing to the satisfaction of the undersigned after examining under oath PDEA
Director Shabunot that there is probable cause to believe that violations of Section 18 and
16 of R.A. 9165 have been committed and that there are good and sufficient reasons to
believe that Ho Pia and Sio Pao have in their possession or control, in a two (2) door
apartment with an iron gate located at Jupiter St., Sta. Cruz, Laguna, undetermined
amount of "shabu" and drug manufacturing implements and paraphernalia which should
be seized and brought to the undersigned.

You are hereby commanded to make an immediate search, at any time in the day or night,
of the premises above described and forthwith seize and take possession of the
abovementioned personal property, and bring said property to the undersigned to be dealt
with as the law directs. Witness my hand this 1st day of March, 2012. (signed)

Judge XYZ

a. Cite/enumerate the defects, if any, of the search warrant.

b. Suppose the search warrant was served on March 15, 2012 and the search yielded
the described contraband and a case was filed against the accused in RTC, Sta.
Cruz, Laguna and you are the lawyer of Sio Pao and Ho Pia, what will you do?
c. Suppose an unlicensed armalite was found in plain view by the searchers and the
warrant was ordered quashed, should the court order the return of the same to the
Chinese nationals? (2012 Bar)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

a. The defects are: the search warrant did not sufficiently specify the place to be searched
and the things to be searched; and the search warrant commands an immediate search
which is against the general rule that a search warrant be executed in day time subject to
exception. There is no showing that the exception applies to this case.
b. If I were the lawyer, I would file a motion to quash the search warrant as it was executed
beyond its validity. The law provides that a search warrant shall only be valid for 10 days
from its issuance. Here, the search was conducted beyond the validity of the warrant.
c. No, the court should not order its return. The possession of an unlicensed armalite is in
itself a mala prohibita. Therefore, possession of such is illegal per se.

The search warrant authorized the seizure of "undetermined quantity of shabu." During
the service of the search warrant, the raiding team also recovered a kilo of dried marijuana
leaves wrapped in newsprint. The accused moved to suppress the marijuana leaves as
evidence for the violation of Section 11 of the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002
since they were not covered by the search warrant. The State justified the seizure of the
marijuana leaves under the "plain view" doctrine. There was no indication of whether the
marijuana leaves were discovered and seized before or after the seizure of the shabu. If you
are the judge, how would you rule on the motion to suppress? (2008 Bar)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:

The motion to suppress the evidence should be granted because the search warrant is a violation
of the constitutional and statutory rights of the accused since it did not particularly describe the
place to be searched and the things to be seized. The plain view doctrine cannot be invoked since
the marijuana were wrapped in a newsprint.

Police operatives of Western Police District, Philippine National Police, applied for a search
warrant in the RTC for the search of the house of Juan Santos and the seizure of an
undetermined amount of shabu. The team arrived at the house of Santos but failed to find
him there. Instead, the team found Roberto Co. The team conducted a search in the house
of Santos in the presence of Roberto Co and barangay official and found ten (10) grams of
shabu. Roberto Co was charged in court with illegal possession of ten grams of shabu.
Before his arraignment, Roberto Co filed a motion to quash the warrant on the following
grounds (a) it was not the accused named in the search warrant and (b) the warrant does
not prescribe the article to be seized with sufficient particularity. Resolve the motion with
reasons. (2005 Bar)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

The motion to quash should be denied because the name of the person searched is not a
necessary element of a search warrant. It is enough that the search was conducted on the
particular place indicated therein.

A search warrant was issued for the purpose of looking for unlicensed firearms in the
house of Assassin, 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.
Hetook 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? (2014 Bar)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

Yes, the objection of Ass-asin is valid.

The law provides that the search warrant should particularly describe the place to be searched
and the things to be seized.

Here, the search warrant provides that the search be conducted in the house of Ass-asin and not
on the nipa hut where the marijuana were found. To admit these marijuana leaves as evidence
would be a violation of the constitutional right of the accused against unreasonable searches and
seizures.
Hercules was walking near a police station when a police officer signaled for him to
approach. As soon as Hercules came near, the police officer frisked him but the latter
found no contraband. The police officer told Hercules to get inside the police station. Inside
the police station, Hercules asked the police officer, "Sir, may problema po ba?" Instead of
replying, the police officer locked up Hercules inside the police station jail.

a. If Hercules filed with the Ombudsman a complaint for warrantless search, as

counsel for the police officer, what defense will you raise for the dismissal of the
complaint?
b. If Hercules opts to file a civil action against the police officer, will he have a cause of
action? (2015 Bar)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

a. I will raise the defense of presumption of regularity in the performance of duty and that
the police officer is allowed to execute a stop-and-frisk search. In such search, the search
precedes the warrantless arrest.