1 Actions; BP22; Demurrer to Evidence (2003)

.
In an action for violation of Batas Pambansa Big. 22, the court granted the
accuseds 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 too the
criminal aspect of the case; and b) at the very least, he was entitled to adduce
controverting evidence on the civil liability. Resolve the Motion for
Reconsideration. (6%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
(a) The Motion for Reconsideration should be denied. The ground that the
demurrer to evidence applied only to the criminal aspect of the case was not
correct because the criminal action for violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22
included the corresponding civil action. (Sec.1(b) of Rule 111).

(b) The accused was not entitled to adduce controverting evidence on the civil
liability,
Because he filed his demurrer to evidence without leave of court. (Sec. 23 of
Rule 119).

2 Arrest; Warrantless Arrests & Seizures (2003)

.
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? 6%

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
(a) Yes, the seizure of the firearm was valid because it was seized in the 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 [1997]).

(b) The denial of the motion to dismiss was not proper. The court had no
authority to issue the writ of replevin whether the firearm was in custodia legis
1 | Page
 or not. The motion to recover the firearm should be filed in the court where the
criminal action is pending.

3 Dismissal; Failure to Prosecute (2003)

.
When a criminal case is dismissed on nolle prosequi, can it later be refilled?
(4%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
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
equivalent to an acquittal and does not bar a subsequent prosecution for the
same offense. (Galvez v. Court of Appeals, 237 SCRA 685 [1994]).

4 Dismissal; Provisional Dismissal (2003)

.
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 complainants
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 refile 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. (6%)

a) Was the provisional dismissal of the case proper?

b) Resolve the Motion to Quash.

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
(a) The provisional dismissal of the case was proper because the accused gave
his express
consent thereto and the offended party was notified. It was not necessary for
the offended party to give her consent thereto. (Sec. 8 of Rule 117).

(b) The motion to quash the information should be denied because, while the
provisional dismissal had already become permanent, the prescriptive period for
2 | Page
 filing the murder charge
had not prescribed. There was no double jeopardy because the first case was
dismissed before the accused had pleaded to the charge. (Sec. 7 of Rule 117).

5 Information; Bail (2003)

.
After the requisite proceedings, the Provincial Prosecutor filed an Information for
homicide against X. The latter, however, timely filed a Petition for Review of the
Resolution of the Provincial Prosecutor with the Secretary of Justice who, in due
time, issued a Resolution reversing the resolution of the Provincial Prosecutor
and directing him to withdraw the Information. Before the Provincial Prosecutor
could comply with the directive of the Secretary of Justice, the court issued a
warrant of arrest against X. The Public Prosecutor filed a Motion to Quash the
Warrant of Arrest and to Withdraw the Information, attaching to it the Resolution
of the Secretary of Justice. The court denied the motion. (6%)

a) Was there a legal basis for the court to deny the motion?
b) If you were the counsel for the accused, what remedies, if any, would you
pursue?

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
(a) Yes, there is a legal basis for the court to deny the motion to quash the
warrant of arrest and to withdraw the information. The court is not bound by the
Resolution of the Secretary of Justice. (Crespo v. Mogul, 151 SCRA 462 [1987]).

(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 offense. At
the pre-trial, I would make a
stipulation of facts with the prosecution which would show that no offense was
committed.

6 Jurisdiction; Complex Crimes (2003)

.
In complex crimes, how is the jurisdiction of a court determined? 4%

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
In a complex crime, jurisdiction over the whole complex crime must be lodged
with the trial court having jurisdiction to impose the maximum and most serious
penalty imposable on an offense forming part of the complex crime. (Cuyos v.
Garcia, 160 SCRA 302 [1988]).

3 | Page