DIAGNOSTIC TEST
An information for murder was filed against Rapido. The RTC Judge, after
I.
A. When does a public prosecutor conduct an inquest instead of a
preliminary investigation?
When the accused was arrested validly without a warrant of arrest.
When the offender is arrested in flagrante delicto without a warrant of
arrest, an inquest proceeding should be conducted and thereafter, a case
may be filed in court even without the requisite preliminary investigation.
B. When is a bail a matter of judicial discretion?
Bail is a matter of judicial discretion:
1. Before conviction by the RTC of an offense punishable by
death, reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment; and
2. After conviction by the RTC of an offense not punishable
by death, reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment.
C. Give at least two instances when a peace officer or a private person
may make a valid warrantless arrest.
The following are the instances when a peace officer or a private person may
make a valid warrantless arrest:
1. When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed,
is actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense;
2. When an offense has just been committed and
he has probable cause to believe
based on personal knowledge of facts or circumstances
that the person to be arrested has committed it; and
3. When the person to be arrested is an escaped prisoner.
II.
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 facts revealed that he had been illegally arrested. He further
moved for the suppression of the evidence confiscated from his as being the
consequence of the illegal arrest, hence, the fruit of a poisonous tree.
The trial court, in denying the motion of Boy Maton, explained that at the
time the motion were filed, Boy Maton had already waived the right to raise
the issue fo 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.
1.
The ruling of the court denying the motion for dismissal of the information
on the ground of illegal arrest is proper.
Under the Rules of Criminal Procedure, the accused's failure to file a motion
to quash before plea is a waiver of the objection to lack of personal
jurisdiction or of the objection to an illegal arrest.
Here, Boy Maton entered a plea without filing a motion to quash on the
ground of lack of personal jurisdiction.
Hence, he is deemed to have waived the ground of illegal arrest which is
subsumed under lack of personal jurisdiction.
2.
However, the ruling denying the motion to suppress evidence is not correct.
The Supreme Court has held that a waiver of an illegal, warrantless arrest
does not carry with it a waiver of the inadmissibility of evidence seized
during an illegal warrantless arrest. A waiver of an illegal arrest is not a
waiver of an illegal search. The Constitution provides that evidence seized
in violation of the right against illegal search is inadmissible in evidence.
Here, the evidence seized was by virtue of an illegal search since the arrest
was illegal.
Hence, such evidence may be suppressed.
III.
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
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:
A. 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;
B. 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.
No. The warrant of arrest may not be quashed on the grounds cited by
Rapido's counsel.
A. The SC has held in Soliven v Makasiar, that Section 2 of Article III of
the Constitution does not mandatorily require the judge to personally
examine the complainant and his witnesses. The judge may opt to personally
evaluate the report and supporting documents submitted regarding the
existence of probable cause and on the basis thereof issue a warrant of
arrest.
B.There is no requirement of a prior order by the judge finding probable
cause. The SC has held that the judge may rely upon the resolution of the
investigating prosecutor provided that he personally evaluates the same and
the affidavits and supporting documents, which he did.
IV.
A. 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 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 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.
Mr Pork Chop's motion to terminate the investigation before the Office of
the Ombudsman is denied.
In a case involving similar facts, the Supreme Court held that the death of a
co-conspirator, even if he was the lone public officer, did not mean that the
allegation of conspiracy to violate the Anti-Graft Law could no longer be
proved or that the alleged conspiracy was already expunged. The only thing
extinguished by the death of a co-conspirator was his criminal liability. His
death did not extinguish the crime nor did it remove the basis of the charge
of conspiracy between him and private respondent.
B. 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.
Tomas' motion to dismiss on the ground of litis pendentia should be denied.
In cases of physical injuries, a civil action for damages, entirely separate and
distinct from the criminal action, may be brought by the injured party. Such
civil action shall proceed independently of the criminal action and hence,
may not be dismissed on the ground of litis pendentia
V.
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 or 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 murder 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?
The arrest must be made within 24 hours after the commission of the crime.
Where the arrest took place a day after the commission of the crime, it
cannot be said that an offense has just been committed.
B. What does "personal knowledge of the facts and circumstances that
the person to be arrested committed it" mean?
"Personal knowledge of the facts and circumstances that the person to
be arrested committed it" means personal knowledge not of the commission
of the crime itself but of facts and circumstances which would lead to the
conclusion that the person to be arrested has probably committed the crime.
Such personal knowledge arises from reasonably worthy information in the
arresting person's possession coupled with his own observation and fair
inferences therefrom that the person arrested has probably committed the
offense.
VI.
A. What elements should concur for circumstantial evidence to be
sufficient for conviction?
The following elements should concur for circumstantial evidence to be
sufficient for conviction:
1. There is more than one circumstance;
2. The facts from which the inferences are derived are proven.
3. The combination of all the circumstances is such as to produce
a conviction beyond reasonable doubt.
B. What is a tender of excluded evidence?
Tender of excluded evidence is the remedy of a party
when the evidence he has offered is excluded by the court.
If documentary or object evidence is excluded by the court,
the offeror may have the same attached to or made part of the record.
If the evidence excluded is oral,
the offeror may state for the record
the name and other personal circumstances of the witness and
the substance of the proposed testimony.
VII.
Police officers arrested Mr Druggie in a buy-bust operation and confiscated
from him 10 sachets of shabu and several marked genuine peso bills worth
P5,000 used as the buy-bust money during the buy-bust operation.
At the trial of Mr Druggie for violation of RA 9165, the Prosecution offered
in evidence, among others, photocopies of the confiscated marked genuine
peso bills. The photocopies were offered to prove that Mr Druggie had
engaged at the time of his arrest in the illegal selling of dangerous drugs.
Invoking the Best Evidence Rule, Atty. Maya Bang, the defense counsel,
objected to the admissibility of the photocopies of the confiscated marked
genuine peso bills.
Should the trial judge sustain the objection of the defense counsel? Briefly
explain your answer.
No, the trial judge should not sustain the objection that invokes the best
evidence rule.
The Supreme Court has held that the best evidence rule applies only to
documentary evidence, not to object or testimonial evidence.
Here, the marked money is object, not documentary evidence since it is
being offered to prove not its contents but its existence and use in the buy-
bust operation.
VIII.
Immediately before he died of gunshot wounds to his chest, Venancio told
the attending physician, in a very feeble voice, that it was Arnulfo, his co-
worker, who had shot him. Venancio added that it was also Arnulfo who had
shot Vicente, the man whose cadaver was lying on the bed beside him.
In the prosecution of Arnulfo for the criminal killing of Venancio and
Vicente, are all the statements of Venancio admissible as dying declarations?
Explain your answer.
No, not all the statements of Venancio are admissible as dying declarations.
Under the Rules on Evidence, a dying declaration is admissible as an
exception to teh hearsay rule provided that such declaration relates to the
cause of the declarant's death.
Venancio's statement that it was Arnulfo who shot him is admissible sas a
dying declaration. The same related to Venancio's own demise. It may be
inferred that Venancio had consciousness of his impending death since he
suffered gunshots wounds to his chest which would necessarily be mortal
wounds.
However, Venancio's statement that it was Arnulfo who shot Vicente is not
admissible as a dying declaration since it did not relate to the cause of the
declarant's death but to the death of another person.
IX.
In an attempt to discredit and impeach a prosecution witness in a homicide
case, the defense counsel called to the stand a person who had been the
boyhood friend and next-door neighbor of the prosecution witness for 30
years. One question that the defense counsel asked of the impeaching witness
was: "Can you tell this Honorable Court about the general reputation of the
proseuction witness in your community for aggressiveness and violent
tendencies?
Would you, as the trial prosecutor, interpose your objection to the questions
of the defense counsel? Explain your answer.
Yes. I, as the trial prosecutor, would interpose my objection to defense
counsel's question on the ground of improper impeachment.
Under the Law on Evidence, an adverse party's witness may be properly
impeached by reputation evidence provided that it is to the effect that the
witness' general reputation for honesty, truth or integrity was bad. The
reputation must only be on character for truthfulness or untruthfulness.
Here, the evidence is not on the prosecution witness' general reputation for
honesty, truth or integrity but on his aggressive and violent tendencies. The
evidence had nothing to do with the witness' character for truthfulness or
untruthfulness.
Hence, the impeachment was improper.
X.
Pedro, the principal witness in a criminal case, testified and completed his
testimony on direct examination in 2015. Due to several postponements by
the accused, grounded on his recurring illness, which were all granted by
the judge, the cross-examination of Pedro was finally set on October 15,
2016. Before the said date, Pedro died. The accused moved to expunge
Pedro's testimony on the ground that it violates his right of confrontation
and the right to cross-examine the witness. The prosecution opposed the
motion and asked that Pedro's testimony on direct examination be admitted
as evidence. Is the Motion meritorious? Explain.
No. The motion to expunge Pedro's testimony on the ground that it violates
the accused's right to confront the witness is not meritorious.
The Supreme Court has held that where the delay in cross-examining the
witness was imputable to the accused, he could not be heard to complain if
the witness becomes unavailable through no fault of the party presenting the
witness and hence, the witness' direct examination should not be stricken
out.
Here, the delay in cross-examining Pedro was imputable to the motions for
postponement filed by the accused and the death of Pedro was not the fault
of the prosecution.
QUIZ
I.
Alex was charged with theft of an article worth P100k. 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 P40k, which the court
denied. Did the trial court act properly?
No, because a plea of guilty to a lesser offense may be allowed if the lesser
offense is necessarily included in the offense charged. Estafa involving P
40,000.00 is not necessarily included in theft of an article worth P 100,000.00
II.
Charged with the crime of murder of Andrew before the RTC of Bulacan,
the accused, Jason, assisted by counsel, pleaded guilty to the charge.
Thereupon, the court rendered a judgment convicting Jason for the crime
of murder and sentencing him to suffer reclusion perpetua and to pay civil
indemnity to the heirs of Andrew. Was the court correct in rendering a
judgment without conducting a searching inquiry into the voluntariness and
full comprehension of the consequences of the accused's plea and to require
the prosecution to prove Jason's guilt and the precise degree of culpability?
The trial court acted properly.
The duty of the court to conduct a searching inquiry into the voluntariness
and full comprehension of the consequences of the accused’s plea and to
require the prosecution to prove his guilt and the precise degree of
culpability applies only to a capital offense. Since the death penalty has been
abolished, there is no longer any capital offense.
III.
The accused, Reynaldo, filed a motion to quash the information against him
on the following grounds that the court had no jurisdiction over his person,
that the court had no jurisdiction over the offense charged, and that the
officer who filed the information had no authority to do so. Sought by the
court for comment, on the issue that the court had no jurisdiction over
Reynaldo's person, the public prosecutor argued that Reynaldo had waived
said objection to lack of personal jurisdiction. Is the public prosecutor's
argument correct?
Yes. The rule is that if the accused objects to the jurisdiction of the court
over his person, he may move to quash the information, but only on that
ground. If, as in this case, the accused raises other grounds in the motion to
quash, he is deemed to waived that objection and to have submitted his
person to the jurisdiction of that court.
IV.
When shall a plea of not guilty be entered for the accused?
(1) When the accused refuses to plea or makes a conditional plea.
(2) When the accused pleads guilty but presents exculpatory
evidence, his plea shall be deemed withdrawn and a plea of not
guilty shall be entered for him.
V.
During the pre-trial conference, the accused, Bembol, submitted to the court
a document indicating therein his personal offer to settle the case for P1M
to the private prosecutor, who immediately put the offer on record in the
presence of the trial judge. Is Bembol's offer a judicial admission of his
guilt?
No. The Rules of Court provides that all agreements or admissions made or
entered during the pre-trial conference shall be reduced in writing and
signed by the accused and counsel; otherwise, they cannot be used against
the accused.
Here, Bembol's offer was merely oral.
Hence, the same cannot be used against him.
VI.
Dan was charged with slight physical injuries in 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 Dan, dismissed the case. A few minutes later, the prosecutor
arrived and opposed the dismissal of the case. The court reconsidered its
order and directed Dan to present his evidence. Before the next date of trial
came, however, Dan moved that the last order be set aside on the ground
that the reinstatement of the case had placed him twice in double jeopardy.
Acceding to the motion, the court again dismissed the case. The prosecutor
then filed an information in the RTC, charging Dan with direct assault based
on the same facts alleged in the information for slight physical injuries but
with the added allegation that Dan inflicted the injuries out of resentment
for what the complainant had done in the performance of his duties as
chairman of the board or election inspectors. Dan moved to quash the
information for direct assault on the ground that its filing had placed him in
double jeopardy. Is Dan's motion tenable?
Dan's motion to quash the information for direct assault on the ground of
double jeopardy because the first offense charged is necessarily included in
the second offense charged.
VII
What are the grounds to move to quash the complaint or information?
The grounds of a motion to quash are the following: (JEJEMON FD)
a. The facts charged do not constitute an offense.
b. The court trying the case has no jurisdiction over the offense
charged.
c. The court trying the case has no jurisdiction over the person of
the accused.
d. The officer who filed the information had no authority to do so.
e. The complaint or information does not conform substantially to
the prescribed form.
f. More than one offense is charged except when a single
punishment for various offenses is prescribed by law.
g. The criminal action or liability has been extinguished.
h. The complaint or information contains averments which, if true,
would constitute a legal excuse or justification.
i. The accused has previously been convicted or acquitted of the
offense charged, or the case against him was terminated without
his express consent. (double jeopardy)
VIII
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 issue a pre-trial order but after some delay caused by Atty. OP, he
was substituted by Atty. QR as a defense counsel. Atty QR fortwith 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 a little or no room to defend himself, and violating his right against
self incrimination. Resolve the Atty. QR’s motion.
The court should deny QR’s motion. If in the pre-trial agreement signed by
the accused and his counsel, the accused admits the documentary evidence
of the prosecution, it does not violate his right against self-incrimination. His
lawyer cannot file a motion to withdraw. A pre-trial order is not needed.
The admission of such documentary evidence is allowed by the rule.
QUIZ NO. 3

I.
Renato filed a criminal action against Alex for the latter's bouncing check.
On the date of the hearing after his arraignment, Renato manifested to the
Court that he is reserving his right to file a separate civil action. The court
allowed Renato to file civil action separately and proceeded to hear the
criminal case. Alex filed a motion for reconsideration contending that the
civil action is deemed included in the criminal case. The court granted the
Motion. Is the court correct in granting the motion for reconsideration?
V.
Cristy, accused of falsification of a public document, testified in her own
behalf. On direct examination, she vehemently denied the allegation that she
falsified the subject public document. On cross-examination, she was asked
to take dictation in his own writing for the purpose of comparison. She
refused invoking her right against self-incrimination. May she be compelled
to take the dictation?

The court is correct in granting the motion for reconsideration. Yes, she may be compelled to take the dictation.

The Rules provides that the criminal action for violation of BP Blg 22 shall
be deemed to include the corresponding civil action. No reservation to file
such civil action separately shall be allowed.
Here, Renato filed the criminal action for violation of BP Blg 22 which
includes the corresponding civil action, which means, he is not allowed to
reserve to file a separate civil action. Thus, the motion for reconsideration
filed by Alex contending that the civil action is deemed included in the
criminal case is tenable.
The Supreme Court has held that an accused who takes the witness stand
waives the privilege against self-incrimination.
Here, Cristy took the witness stand and vehemently denied the allegation
that she falsified the subject public document. Thus, she has waived the
privilege against self-incrimination.
Hence, she may be compelled to take the dictation.

Hence, the Court is correct in granting the motion for reconsideration.

II.

A criminal information is filed before the RTC Manila charging Mara

Rassay with cyber libel punishable under the Cybercrime Prevention Act of
2012, specifically Section 4(c)(4). Mara Rassay files a motion to quash the
information on the ground that no preliminary investigation was conducted
and the penalty for cyber libel is imprisonment for a minimum period of
four years and one day to a maximum of eight years. Will the motion be
granted?

The motion should be denied.

The Rules of Court provides that absence of a preliminary investigation is

not one of the grounds of a motion to quash the information.

Here, Mara Rassay's motion to quash the information on the ground that
no preliminary investigation is not tenable.

Hence, the Motion should be denied.

III.

AX swindled JM in the amount of P10k sometime in June 2003. On the

strength of the sworn statement given by JM personally to SPO1 Juan
Ramos sometime in June 2004, and without securing a warrant, SPO1
Ramos arrested AX. Forthwith the police officer filed with the City
Prosecutor of Manila a complaint for Estafa supported by JM's sworn
statement and other documentary evidence. After due inquest, the
prosecutor filed the requisite information with the RTC of Pasig. Is the
arrest of AX valid?

The arrest of AX was invalid.

The Rules of Court provides that a peace officer or a private person may,
wihtout a warrant, arrest a person:

1. When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed,

is actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense;
2. When an offense has just been committed and
he has probable cause to believe based on personal knowledge of facts
or circumstances
that the person to be arrested has committed it; and
3. When the person to be arrested is an escaped prisoner.

IV.
Danny was charged with murder. He applied for bail, after his arraignment
wherein he pleaded not guilty. Moreover, the public prosecutor interposed
no objection to Danny's bail application. May Danny be admitted to bail?

Danny may be admitted to bail.

The Rules of Court provides that a bail is a matter of judicial discretion

before conviction by the RTC of an offense punishable by death, reclusion
perpetua, or life imprisonment.

Here, the crime charged was murder which is punishable by death, reclusion
perpetua or life imprisonment and there has been no conviction by the RTC
yet. Thus, the bail is discretionary.

Hence, Danny may be admitted to bail.

QUIZ
I.
A. In a BP Blg 22 case, the accused, John, without leave of court filed a
demurrer to evidence. The demurrer was granted by the court but it
held John Civilly liable for damages to the private complainant. John
argued that he should have been allowed to present his evidence on the
civil aspect of the case. Is John correct?
No. When the petitioner filed a demurrer to evidence without leave of
court, the whole case was submitted for judgment on the basis of the
evidence presented by the prosecution as the accused is deemed to have
waived the right to present evidence. At that juncture, the court is
called upon to decide the case including its civil aspect.
B. After the prosecution had rested and made its formal offer of evidence,
with the court admitting all of the prosecution's 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. The prosecution filed an MR on the ground that the
court order granting the demurrer was not in accord with the law and
jurisprudence. Resolve the motion.
No, the motion will not prosper. The Supreme Court has held that the
grant of a demurrer to evidence is equivalent to an acquittal upon the
merits and is immediately final. Hence, the prosecution cannot move
for the reconsideration for that would place the accused in double
jeopardy.
II.
A. When does a judgment become final?
A judgment of conviction becomes final : (PAWS)
1. After the lapse of the period to appeal ;
2. Partial or total service of sentence;
3. Waiver in writing of the right to appeal;
4. Accused has applied for probation.
B. Claire issued 3 postdated checks to Sps Reyes to accommodate their
investment in Multitel Corporation. The checks bounced for
insufficiency of funds. Claire was prosecuted for the violation of BP
Blg 22 and for estafa under Art 315(2)(3) of the RPC. Claire was
acquitted in the BP Blg 22 cases on the ground of reasonable doubt,
with a declaration that the act or omission from which liability may
arise does not exist. Later, Claire was acquitted also in the estafa case
but with the pronouncement that she was civilly liable for the value of
the postdated checks. On appeal, Claire contended that her acquittal
and exoneration from the civil liability in the BP Blg 22 cases should
have barred the private complainants from claiming civil liability from
her in the estafa case. Is Claire's contention correct?
No. Claire’s acquittal and subsequent exoneration in the BP 22 cases had no
effect in the estafa case, even if both cases were founded on the same factual
circumstances. While a BP 22 case and an estafa casd may be rooted from a
indential set of facts, they nevertheless present different causes of action,
which, under the law, are considered “separate, distinct and independent”
from each other. Therefore, both cases can proceed to their final
adjudication- both as to their criminal and civil aspects – subject to the
prohibition on double recovery. Perforce, a ruling in BP 22 case concerning
the criminal and civil liabilities of the accused cannot be given any bearing
whatsoever in the criminal and civil aspects of a related estafa case.
III.
A. What are the grounds for New Trial?
The court shall grant a new trial on any of the following grounds :
1. PREJUDICIAL ERRORS OR IRREGULARITIES. Errors of
law or irregularities prejudicial to the substantial rights of the
accused have been committed during the trial.
2. NEWLY DISCOVERED EVIDENCE. New and material
evidence has been discovered which the accused could not with
reasonable diligence have discovered and produced at the trial
and which if introduced and admitted would probably change the
judgment.
B. What are the grounds for reconsideration?
The court shall grant reconsideration on the ground of errors of law or fact
in the judgment, which do not require further proceedings.
IV.
Dan was charged and convicted by the MeTC of Las Pinas City with the
crime of falsification of private documents. The judgment of conviction was
promulgated on May 1, 2008 in the presence of Dan and his counsel.
A. Up to when may Dan appeal, to what court shall he take his appeal,
and how shall he take his appeal?
Under the Rules of Criminal Procedure, Dan may appeal to the RTC within
15 days from promulgation of judgment or up to the May 16, 2018 by filing
a notice of appeal with the MeTC and serving a copy thereof upon the
adverse party.
B. Assume that on May 14, 2008, Dan filed an MR and the same was
denied on June 14, 2008, a copy of which Dan received on June 18,
2008. Up to when may Dan appeal?
Dan may appeal up to July 3, 2008.
The Supreme Court has held that the fresh 15-day period provided for
applies to appeals in criminal cases, notwithstanding the wordings of S6 R
122. The Supreme Court said it would be absurd for an appellant in a civil
case to have a better right of appeal than the accused in criminal case.
C. Would your answer be the same if the crime of which Drew was
convicted was slight physical injuries?
No. My answer would not be the same. Drew can no longer appeal.
Under the Rules on Summary Procedure, a motion for reconsideration of a
judgment is a prohibited pleading. Cases for violation of BP Blg 22 are
covered by the Rules on Summary Procedure.
Here, the motion for reconsideration is a prohibited pleading and did not
suspend the running of the reglementary period to appeal. Hence the
judgment became final and executory.
V.
Jed was charged and convicted by the MeTC or Makati City with the crime
of falsification of private documents. Jed was able to timely appeal to the
RTC. The RTC rendered judgment denying the appeal of Jed. Jed received
a copy of the judgment on December 1, 2009. Jed plans to appeal the RTC
Decision on pure question of law.
A. Up to when may Jed appeal the RTC's decision, to what court shall he
take his appeal, and how shall he take his appeal?
Under the Rules of Criminal Procedure, Jed may appeal the RTC’s decision
to the Court of Appeals within 15 days from notice of judgment or until
December 16, 2009 by filing a petition for review under Rule 42 and serving
a copy thereof upon the adverse party. Rule 42 applies since the RTCs
decision was rendered in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction.
The Supreme Court has held that even if the appeal from a RTC decision is
on pure questions of law, the appeal must be taken to the Court of Appeals
and not to the Supreme Court pursuant to the Rules of Criminal Procedure.
B. Assume that on December 14, 2009, Jed filed an MR and the same was
denied by the RTC. Jed received a copy of the order of denial on March
1, 2010. Up to when may Jed appeal?
Jed may appeal up to March 16, 2009.
Under the Rules of Criminal Procedure, the appeal to the Court of Appeals
in cases decided by the RTC in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction shall
be by petition for review under Rule 42. Under Rule 42, the petition may be
filed within 15 days from notice of the decision or of the denial of the motion
for reconsideration.
MIDTERM B. What are the grounds for a new trial?

1. The following are the grounds for a New Trial:

While in his Toyota Wigo and hurrying home to Marawi City from his work
in Cagayan de Oro City, Noah figured in a vehicular mishap along that
portion of C3 within the City of Iligan. He was bumped from behind by a
Ford Expedition SUV driven by Jabbar 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. Noah suffered physical injuries while his Toyota Wigo sustained
damage in excess of P500,000.00.
A. As counsel of Noah, describe the process you need to undertake starting
from the point of the incident if Noah would proceed criminally against
Jabbar, and identify the court with jurisdiction over the case.
As counsel of Noah:
First, I will make him medically examined in order to ascertain the gravity
and extent of the injuries he sustained from the accident;
Second, I will secure a police report relative to the mishap;
1. Prejudicial errors or irregularities; and
2. Newly discovered evidence.
C. What are the grounds for reconsideration?
The only ground for reconsideration is:
1. Errors of law or fact in the judgment, which do not require further
proceedings.
4.
Renato filed a criminal action against Alex for the latter's bouncing check.
On the date of the hearing after his arraignment, Renato manifested to the
court that he is reserving his right to file a separate civil action. The Court
allowed Renato to file a civil action separately and proceeded to hear the
criminal case. Alex filed a motion for reconsideration contending that the
civil action is deemed included in the criminal case. The Court granted the
Motion. Is the court correct in granting the motion for reconsideration?

Third, I will ask him to execute his Sinumpaang Salaysay; and The court is correct in granting the motion for reconsideration.

Then, I will use his Sinumpaang Salaysay or prepare a complaint affidavit
and file the same in the Office of the City Prosecutor of Iligan and later to
the appropriate MTC of Iligan City for the crime of Reckless Imprudence
Resulting to Physical Injuries and Damage to Property.
B. If Noah choose to file an independent civil action for damages, explain
briefly this type of action; its legal basis; and the different approaches
in pursuing this type of action.
An independent civil action is an action which is entirely distinct and
separate from the criminal action. Such civil action shall proceed
independently of the criminal prosecution and shall require only a
preponderance of evidence. Section 3 of Rule 111 allows the filing of an
independent civil action by the offended party based on Article 33 and 2176
of the New Civil Code.
The different approaches that the plaintiff can pursue in this type of action
are, as follows:
1. File the independent civil action and prosecute the criminal case
separately;
2. File the independent civil action without filing the criminal case.
3. File the criminal case without need of reserving the independent civil
action.
2.
Sharon, a young and lonely OFW, had an intimate relationship abroad with
a friend, Richard. Although Sharon comes home to Manila every six months,
her foreign posting still left her husband Franc lonely so that he also engaged
in his own extramarital activities. In one particularly exhilarating session
with his girlfriend, Franc died. Within 180 days from Franc's death, Sharon
gives birth in Manila to a baby boy. Irate relatives of Franc contemplate
charging Sharon for Adultery and they hire your law firm to handle the
case. Is the contemplated criminal action a viable option to bring?
The Rules provides that the criminal action for violation of BP Blg 22 shall
be deemed to include the corresponding civil action. No reservation to file
such civil action separately shall be allowed.
Here, Renato filed the criminal action for violation of BP Blg 22 which
includes the corresponding civil action, which means, he is not allowed to
reserve to file a separate civil action. Thus, the motion for reconsideration
filed by Alex contending that the civil action is deemed included in the
criminal case is tenable.
Hence, the Court is correct in granting the motion for reconsideration.
5.
Cristy, accused of falsification of a public document, testified in her own
behalf. On direct examination, she vehemently denied the allegation that she
falsified the subject public document. On cross-examination, she was asked
to take dictation in his own writing for the purpose of comparison. She
refused invoking her right against self-incrimination. May she be compelled
to take the dictation?
Yes, she may be compelled to take the dictation.
The Supreme Court has held that an accused who takes the witness stand
waives the privilege against self-incrimination.
Here, Cristy took the witness stand and vehemently denied the allegation
that she falsified the subject public document. Thus, she has waived the
privilege against self-incrimination.
Hence, she may be compelled to take the dictation.

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

The Rules of Court provides that Adultery shall not be prosecuted except
upon a complaint filed by the offended spouse.

In this case, the relatives of Franc are not the aggrieved party nor the
offended spouse. Thus, the Adultery case they are contemplating to bring
will not be prosecuted.

Hence, the contemplated criminal action is not a viable option to bring.

3.

A. What are the grounds for suspension of arraignment?

The following are the grounds for suspension of arraignment:

1. The accused appears to be suffering from an unsound mental condition;
2. There exists a prejudicial question; and
3. There is a pending Petition for Review of the resolution of the prosecutor
before the Department of Justice or Office of the President.
QUIZ APRIL 5, 2019
1.
In a disbarment case, introduced in evidence against the respondent was a
birth certificate showing that he had fathered children by his mistress. The
respondent invokes Article 7 of PD No. 603 which provides that the birth
records of a person shall be kept strictly confidential and that no
information thereto shall be disclosed except on request of the person
himself or of a court or proper government official and which punishes with
imprisonment and/or fine any unauthorised disclosure. Is the birth
certificate admissible in evidence?
Yes. Article 7 of PD No. 603 only provides for sanctions against persons
violating the rule on confidentiality of birth records, but nowhere does it
state that procurement of birth records in violation of said article would
render said records inadmissible in evidence.
On the other hand, the Revised Rules of Evidence only provides for the
exclusion of evidence if it is obtained as a result of illegal searches and
seizures.
It should be emphasized, however, that said rule against unreasonable
searches and seizures is meant only to protect a person from interference by
the government or the state.
Consequently, in this case where complainants, as private individuals,
obtained the subject birth records as evidence against respondent, the
protection against unreasonable searches and seizures does not apply.
Since both Article 7 of PD No. 603 and the Revised Rules on Evidence do not
provide for the exclusion from evidence of the birth certificates in question,
said public documents are, therefore, admissible and should be properly
taken into consideration in the resolution of this administrative case against
respondent.
2.
At the trial of Ace for Violation of RA 9165, the prosecution offers in
evidence a photocopy of the marked P100 bills used in the "buy-bust"
operation. Ace objects to the introduction of the photocopy on the ground
that the Best Evidence Rule prohibits the introduction of secondary evidence
in lieu of the original.
Is the photocopy real evidence or documentary evidence?
The photocopy is real evidence because the same is being offered not to
prove the contents of the marked money but to prove its existence and use
in the buy-bust operation.
Is the photocopy admissible in evidence?
The photocopy is admissible in evidence.
The objection that the introduction thereof would violate the Best Evidence
Rule does not lie since the best evidence rule does not apply to object or real
evidence.
3.
What are the exceptions to the best evidence rule?
The exceptions to the best evidence rule are the following:
A. Custody or Control;
B. The original has been lost or destroyed, or cannot be produced in court
without bad faith on the part of the offeror;
C. Accounts which are numerous and cannot be examined without great
loss of time and the fact sought to be established is only the general result
of the whole;
D. Original is a public record in the custody of a public officer or is
recorded in a public office.
4.
X asked a telephone operator to place a call to his lawyer Y. The telephone
operator recognized the voice as that of X, a person she knew. She placed
the call to Y but contrary to company regulations, eavesdropped on the
telephone conversation. She overheard X tell the lawyer that he had just shot
to death his wife and asked him for advice.
A. In the prosecution of X for murder, may the operator testify on what she
had overheard over objection that the conversation is a privileged
attorney-client communication?
Yes. The attorney-client privilege bars only the attorney or his secretary,
stenographer, or clerk from being examined but the privilege does not
extend to third persons who obtain knowledge of the communication
between lawyer and client.
The privilege is a derogation from the general testimonial duty and should
be strictly construed.
That the operator was eavesdropping is of no consequence.
The privilege does not bar production by the adverse party of a letter
between the client and his attorney which letter came into the adverse
party's possession.
B. What is the reason for the attorney work-product rule?
The rule that the trial preparation materials of a lawyer or his
representative are privileged from discovery unless the other party shows
that it has a substantial need for the materials to prepare its case, and
cannot, without undue hardship, obtain their substantial equivalent by
other means.
Trial preparation materials include written documents, such as records,
notes, memorandums and tangible things.
If discovery will be allowed, the court must protect against disclosure of the
mental impressions, conclusions, opinions and legal theories of the lawyer
or his representatives.
5.
Prosecution of H for the murder of P, the paramour of H's wife W. The
prosecution calls W to the witness stand and offers her testimony in order
to prove the circumstances surrounding P's killing. After preliminary
questions, the prosecution asks W if he saw H leave the crime scene minutes
after the killing of P. The defense objects on the ground of the marital
disqualification rule.
A. If you were the judge, how would you rule on the objection? Explain.
If I were the Judge, I would overrule the objection.
Under the Rules of Evidence, objection to evidence offered orally must be
made immediately after the offer is made.
Here, the defense did not immediately object at the time W's testimony was
offered in evidence although the ground for the objection was already
apparent at that point.
Hence, the defense waived the ground for the objection.
Subsequently, the prosecution asks W whether days before the killing while
resting in their bedroom, H had told her that he hates P because of W's
feelings for P. The defense objects on the ground of the marital
communication privilege.
B. If you were the judge, how would you rule on the objection? Explain.
If I were the judge, I would sustain the objection.
Under the Rules of Evidence, objection to a question propounded in the
course of the witness's oral examination shall be made as soon as the grounds
therefor shall become reasonably apparent.
Here, the ground for the objection, that the communication was made in
confidence during the marriage, became reasonably apparent only at the
time the question was propounded.
Hence, the objection was timely made.
6.
Who are disqualified to be a witness?
The following persons cannot be witnesses:
1. Those who are mentally incapacitated and immature children;
2. Spouses under the Marital Disqualification Rule;
3. Claimants against the estate of a deceased person or against an insane
person; and
4. Those who are disqualified by reason of privileged communication.