ERWIN APRIL C.

MIDSAPAK
GRADUATING

COR JESU COLLEGE

A Catholic School Administered by the Brothers of the
Sacred Heart that aims to fully transform and draw out the
best of a person witnessing the compassionate love of God.

Criminal Procedure. May 22, 2021

Essay. 100%.
Instruction: Please encode your answer on this document in BLUE FONT
COLOR, immediately after each item. Feel free to edit spaces, immediately after
each item. Discuss exhaustively the rules involved. Incomplete and partial answers
will only merit half of the points provided.

1. When can courts issue writ of prohibition or injunction to enjoin or

restrained any criminal prosecution? Discuss all aspects exhaustively. 10 pts.

The courts can issue writ of prohibition and injunction to enjoin or restrain
any criminal prosecution under the following circumstances:

a) When the injunction is necessary to afford adequate protection to the

constitutional rights of the accused;
b) When it is necessary for the orderly administration of justice or to avoid
multiplicity of suits or oppression
c) When there is a prejudicial question
d) Where the acts of the officer are without or in excess of his authority
e) When the accused is prosecuted under an invalid law, ordinance or
regulation
f) When double jeopardy is clearly apparent
g) When the Court has no jurisdiction over the offense
h) Where the charges are manifestly false and motivated by the lust for
vengeance
 i) When there is clearly no prima facie case against the accused and a
motion to quash on that ground was denied
j) When it is a case of persecution rather than prosecution

2. An information was filed before the Sandiganbayan charging Roweno with

Violation of Section 3(e) of RA 3019. The information accused Roweno of
entering into numerous security service contracts with Meanbitz Security
from 2002 to 2012 absent the required public bidding thereby giving the
latter unwarranted benefits. During the trial and before the Prosecution
presented its last witness on April 4, 2018 Prosecution filed a motion for
leave of court to file amended information dated March 27, 2018 seeking to
amend the amount stated in the information from Php 7,843,54.33 to Php
7,842,941.60 which is the amount reflected in the disbursement voucher. In
opposition thereto, Roweno argued that the amendment is not merely formal
but substantial which would be prejudicial to his rights as accused. In a
resolution dated April 27, 2018, the Sandiganbayan denied the prosecution's
motion for lack of merit. It ruled that the mistake in the amount of alleged
undue injury stated in the information is too substantial to have been left
uncorrected for more than a year. During which time evidence to prove the
allegations in the information had already been presented. Moreover, it held
that the alleged difference could not be rule out as a mere typographical
error, especially considering that the amount involved was only alleged
numerically and had not been spelled out in words where the difference
would have been readily apparent. Is the ruling of the Sandiganbayan
correct? Discuss exhaustively, 10 pts.

NO. The Sandiganbayan is not correct.

The amendments sought are merely formal.

Under Rule 110 of the Rules of Court, after the plea and during the trial, a
formal amendment may only be made with leave of court and when it can be
done without causing prejudice to the rights of the accused. An amendment
is merely formal when it does the change the nature or the essence of the
offense.

In la catena of cases, the Court has consistently held that the test as to
whether a defendant is prejudiced by the amendment of the information is
whether a defense available under the information as it originally stood
 would be available after the amendment is made, and whether any evidence
the defendant might have would also be equally applicable to the
information in one form as to the other. An amendment of the information
which does not change the nature of the crime as alleged does not affect the
essence of the offense or cause surprise or deprive the accused of an
opportunity to meet the new averment is one is held to be one of form
rather than of substance.

In this case, changing the amount of the transaction would not alter or
change the nature or essence of the crime or the basis of the charge.
Moreover, the discrepancy in the amount of the transaction is not an
essential element of the offense charged in the information. Stated
otherwise, the facts alleged in the information are similar to that of the
original information except as to the amount the involved.

3. On April 6, 2001, Caloy entered into contract agreement with Kappa Corp
where Jhums is the president and chairperson. Under the agreement Caloy
would receive a fix monthly dividend for 5 years in exchange for his
investment in Kappa Corp. To cover Caloy’s monthly dividend Jhums
issued 6 checks. The first three checks were good checks but the remaining
three checks bounce for having been drawn against insufficient funds. A
formal demand was delivered to Jhums’ office, but no payment was made.
Thus, Caloy filed a complaint for 4 counts of violation of BP 22. On May
20, 2011, the MTC rendered a decision finding a guiltyas charged. Jhums
appealed to the RTC which affirmed in toto the judgment of the MTC. On
petition for review, the CA denied the petition of Jhums. With the CA’s
denial of motion for reconsideration, Jhums filed a petition for review on
certiorari with the Supreme Court raising the ground that the Prosecution
failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that he received the notice of
dishonor. Jhums also raised for the first time that the 4 Informations filed
before the MTC where defective as it does not bear the approval of the city
prosecutor. Is the contention that the Informations were defective tenable?
Discuss exhaustively. 10 pts. 

NO. The Informations file were not defective despite the absence of
approval of the City Prosecutor.

In one case decided by the Supreme Court, it was held that, lack of prior
written authority or approval on the face of the Information by the
prosecuting officers authorized to approve and sign the same has nothing to
 do with the trial court’s acquisition of jurisdiction in a criminal case. The
Information is defective when it is filed by a person who has no authority to
do so.

In the case at bar, the Information was filed by the City prosecutor albeit not
signed. Also, the City Prosecutor in this case was authorized by law to file
the Information.

4. What is the concept of inordinate delay? Discuss exhaustively. 10 pts.

The concept of inordinate delay refers to the doctrine in remedial law

wherein the trial court may dismiss the case on account of unreasonable or
capricious delay caused by the prosecution on the ground of the violation of
the constitutional rights of the accused to speedy trial.

A dismissal based on a violation of right to speedy trial is equivalent to a n

acquittal and double jeopardy may attach even if the dismissal is with the
consent of the accused. It would bar the prosecution of the accused for the
same offense.

In one case decided by the Supreme Court, it was held that, to exercise the
right to speedy trial, the accused should ask the trial of the case first instead
of moving for its dismissal outright.

5. John was charged with violation of anti-graft law. John plead not guilty to
the charge. Trial on the merits then ensued. On August 29, 2017, the
Sandiganbayan rendered its decision finding John guilty. It initially granted
John the right to bail but eventually the Sandiganbayan cancelled bail on the
ground of possibility of flight because John failed to appear in court in
several occasions despite the directives. Did the revocation bail on the
ground of violation of the conditions of his bail and for possibility of flight
proper? Discuss exhaustively. 10 pts.

Yes. The revocation of the bail on the ground of violation of the conditions
of his bail and for possibility of flight proper.

Under Rule 114 of the Rules of Court, after conviction of an offense not
punishable by death, reclusion perpetua, or life imprisonment, the grant of
bail becomes discretionary upon the court, which may either deny or grant it.
 In circumstances where the penalty imposed exceeds six (6) years, the court
is not precluded from cancelling the bail previously granted upon a showing
by the prosecution of bail negating circumstances as follows:

(a) That he is a recidivist, quasi-recidivist, or habitual delinquent, or has

committed the crime aggravated by the circumstance of reiteration;

(b) That he has previously escaped from legal confinement, evaded

sentence,  or violated the conditions of his bail without valid justification;

(c)  That he committed the offense while under probation, parole, or

conditional pardon

(d) That the circumstances of his case indicate the probability of flight if
released on bail; or

(e)  That there is undue risk that he may commit another crime during the
pendency of the appeal.

In the case at bar the accused violated the conditions of his bail without valid
justification and he is a flight risk. Therefore, the revocation of his bail was
proper.

6. Lando was charged with two counts of rape under the Revised Penal Code in
relation to Republic Act No. 8369 of a 12 year old minor one Rosemarie.
Lando entered a plea of not guilty and trial insued. Lando through his
counsel manifested in open court that he would no longer present any
evidence for the defense and submitted the case for decision. The RTC
promulgated at decision acquitting Lando. On the same day, however, the
RTC recalled the said decision and issued an Order stating that there were
orders that were inadvertently placed in the record of the case involving the
same accused but different private complainant-victim, which if considered
will result in a different verdict. Is the recall by the RTC of the decision
proper? Discuss exhaustively. 10 pts.

NO. Under the finality of acquittal doctrine, a judgment of acquittal is final

and unappealable.
 Under the 1987 Constitution, no person shall be put twice on jeopardy for
the same offense. Under the Rule 117 of the Rules of Court, for double
jeopardy to attach the following elements must concur: 

1) a valid information sufficient in form and substance to sustain a

conviction of the crime charged; 
2) a court of competent jurisdiction; 
3) the accused has been arraigned and had pleaded; and 
4) the accused was convicted or acquitted or the case was dismissed
without his express consent

In one case decided by the Supreme Court, it was held that the only
instance when double jeopardy will not attach is when the RTC acted
with grave abuse of discretion.

In the case at bar, all the elements were present. The acquittal was not also
questioned on the ground grave abuse of discretion. Therefore the RTC
erred when it recalled its decision.

 
7. Distinguish Complaint from Information. Discuss exhaustively. 10 pts.

Under the Rules of Court, a complaint is a sworn written statement charging

a person with an offense, subscribed by the offended party, any peace
officer, or other public officer charged with the enforcement of the law
violated.

On the other hand, an information is an accusation in writing charging a

person with an offense, subscribed by the prosecutor and filed with the
court.

A complaint may be signed by offended party, any peace officer or other

public officer charged with the enforcement of the law violated while an
information is always signed by the prosecutor.

A complaint is sworn to by the person signing it while an information need

not be under oath since the prosecuting officer filing it is already acting
under his oath of office.
 A complaint may be filed either with the office of the prosecutor or with the
court while an information is always filed in court.

8. On January 13 2011, Divine was abducted and killed by a group of men. In

connection with the incident Mario and Pedro voluntarily surrendered to the
PNP and executed extra judicial confessions identifying the Dante brothers
as the masterminds behind the killing. This led to the filing of an
information against Mario, Pedro and the Dante brothers for carnapping with
homicide. On June 27, 2011 a hearing was conducted on the prosecution's
motion that Mario be discharged as an accused to become a state witness.
On the said date, Mario gave testimony and was cross-examined
exhaustively by the defense. Defense however manifested that the cross-
examination was limited only to the incident of discharge and that their party
reserve the right to a more lengthy cross-examination during the
prosecution's presentation of evidence-in-chief. On September 29, 2011, the
RTC issued an order granting the motion to the discharge of Mario as an
accused to become a state witness his testimonies and all the evidence
adduced in support to the discharge form part of the trial of the case. By a
surprise turn of events. Mario was found dead. The RTC then required the
parties to submit the respective position papers on whether or not mario's
testimony during the discharge proceeding should be admitted as part of the
prosecution's evidence in chief despite his failure to testify during the trial
prior to his death. On January 10, 2014, the RTC issued an order directing
the testimony of Mario to be stricken of the records of the case. Pedro
argued that Section 18 Rule 119 of the Rules of Court makes it mandatory
that the state witness be presented during trial proper and that, otherwise is
failure to do so would render his testimony inadmissible. Is the order of the
RTC and argument of Pedro correct? Discuss exhaustively. 10 pts. 

NO. The order of the RTC is not correct. Also, the argument of Pedro is
misplaced.

Under Section 17 Rule 119 of the Rules of Court, the testimony of the
witness during the discharge proceeding will only be inadmissible if the
court denies the motion to discharge the accused as a state witness.

In the case at bar, the hearing was already concluded and the motion to
discharge was approved. Therefore, whatever transpired during the hearing
 is already automatically deemed part of the records of the case and
admissible in evidence. As to the argument of Pedro, it bears stressing that
under the Rules it is very clear that the admissibility of the testimony of a
state witness is conditioned upon the approval of the motion to discharge
and not on whether he was able to testify or not.

9. What are the distinctions between “dismissal” and “acquittal”? Discuss

exhaustively. 10 pts.

Acquittal is always based on the merits of the case that is, he defendant is
acquitted because the evidence does not show that defendant’s guilt is
beyond a reasonable doubt; dismissal on the other hand does not decide the
case on the merits or that the defendant is not guilty. 
Dismissal terminates the proceeding, either because the court is not a court
of competent jurisdiction, or the evidence does not show that the offense was
committed within the territorial jurisdiction of the court, or the complaint or
information is not valid or sufficient in form and substance, 

Dismissal may be provisional while acquittal is not.

10.Rohan and Arnie were charged with murder. The RTC convicted Rohan as
an accomplice to the crime of murder that the prosecution was able to
establish by circumstantial evidence that Arnie killed the victim while
Rohan was proven to be armed and behind Arnie. The RTC also considered
the qualifying circumstance of evident premeditation as the attack appeared
to be planned. Dissatisfied Rohan appealed before the CA. Rohan insists
that there was a variance between the allegations in the information and the
proof adduced by the prosecution during trial which is prejudicial to him. Is
the “variance in the participation in the offense between what was alleged in
the information and what was proven” a ground for acquittal? Discussed
exhaustively. 10 pts.

NO.

Under Rule 120 of the Rules of Court when there is variance between the
offense charged in the Information and that proved or established by the
evidence, and the offense as charged necessarily includes the offense
proved, the accused shall be convicted of the offense proved included in that
which is charged.

In one case decided by the Supreme Court, it was held that, variance in the
participation of the offense is between what was alleged in the Information
and what was proven is not a ground for acquittal. Also in one case, it was
held that an accused can be validly convicted as an accomplice or accessory
under an information charging him as a principal because the greater
responsibility necessarily includes the lesser.

In the case at bar, Rohan was charged as the principal in the information
but what was proven during trial is that he was merely an accomplice.