MIDTERM EXAM IN REMEDIAL LAW 2

ROMINA E. VILLAMOR JANUARY 23,2021

As the judge , I shall favor the accused because the accused’s conviction in the case of reckless
imprudence resulting in slight physical injuries shall bar his prosecution in criminal reckless
imprudence resulting in homicide and damage to property.
Conviction or acquittal in a specific act of reckless imprudence brings that the accused may
not be prosecuted again for that same act. In quasi-offense of criminal negligence as provided
for by the RPC lies in the execution of an imprudent or negligent act that, if intentionally done,
would be punishable as a felony. The law penalizes the negligent or careless act, not the result
thereof.
The gravity of the consequence is only necessary in determinng the penlty, but does not
provide for the substance of the offense. Here, there is only one reckless act though the
injurious result affected several persons. But the offense remains one and the same, and cannot
be split into different crimes to effect various prosecution.
2.
No. The action is not a viable option to bring. As provided for in Rule 110 Sec. 5, the crime of
adultery and concubinage shall not be prosecuted except upon complaint filed by the offended
party. In the present case, the offended spouse has already died; this does not give the relatives
the right to institute the action as this is not provided for by the rules that the action shall be
instituted on behalf of the offended spouse by any of the relatives.
3.
If I were in the shoes of the private prosecutor, I shall file a petition for certiorari under Rule
65 with the CA.In case the court is confronted with a motion to withdraw an Information on
the groundof lack of probable cause to hold the accused for trial based on a resolution of the
DOJSecretary, it has the duty to make an independent assessment of the meritsof the motion.
It has the choice to either agree or disagree with the recommendation of the Secretary.If it shall
rely only on the resolution of the Secretary , it shall abandon its duty and jurisdiction to
determine a prima facie case. There must be a strong conviction in the courtthat there is indeed
no sufficient evidence against the accused or the judge shallact with grave abuse of discretion if
he grants the Motion to Withdraw Information bythe trial prosecutor
 4.

No. The RTC erred in denying the motion for reinvestigation and for the recall of the warrant of
arrest.
It is a well settled rule that Jurisdiction over the person of the accused is acquired either by
arrest or by voluntary appearance in court. In the present case, The voluntary appearance of
the accused may be the filing of a pleading or motion in court asking for affirmative relief
constitutes voluntary appearance such as the filing of a motion for reinvestigation which was
what he did.
Also, in a resolution of a motion to quash a warrant of arrest, the court does not necessarily
need to have jurisdiction over the person of the accused. Further.in a motion for reinvestigation
it is not necessary that the accused must be in custody.

5.
Yes. A person is deemed to be under the custody of the law in either of the two ways: a) when
he has been arrested : b) has surrendered himself to the jurisdiction of the court.
The accused confined in a hospital can be deemed to be in the custody of the law if he clearly
expresses his submission to the court during his confinement in the hospital.