MIDTERM EXAMINATIONS

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

Judge Jose P. Ventajar – Professor

REMINDER: Explain your answers because a mere yes or no answer will not be given

credit. Cite the law, rules or jurisprudence applicable to the problem.

A was charged before the City Prosecution Office (CPO) with qualified theft for

harvesting coconuts in a coconut plantation which B claims as his own property. In his

counter-affidavit A alleged that the plantation was already sold to him by the

complainant B and is in fact a subject of a civil action for recovery of possession in the

MTCC of Naga City that he filed against B. The CPO upheld the charge and filed

information for qualified theft in court. A filed a motion for reconsideration but was

denied. A filed a petition for review of the finding of the CPO with the Secretary of

Justice (SOJ). Due to the pendency of the petition for review and in deference to a coequal body, the
court suspended the proceedings in the criminal action until such time

that the SOJ finally resolved the motion for reinvestigation.

A. If you are the government prosecutor what action will you take to

uphold the state’s right to speedy disposition of the criminal action?

B. If you are counsel for A what course of action will you take to uphold

the order of the court?

I.
A. Invoking the right to speedy disposition of cases, I will petition for an immediate review of the
case since it would then deprive my client’s right to such legitimate process as guaranteed by
the Constitution under Article 3 Section 16, which provides that “All persons shall have the right
to a speedy disposition of their cases before all judicial, quasi-judicial, or administrative bodies.
This action will be manifested by invoking it in fact-finding investigations and preliminary
investigations by the Office of the Ombudsman since neither of these proceedings form part of
the actual criminal prosecution. The Constitution itself mandates the Office of the Ombudsman
to "act promptly" on complaints filed before it. Since the rationale of this right is merely to
prevent delay in the administration of justice. This prevention of delays must be mandated in
the courts to proceed with reasonable dispatch in the trial of criminal cases.
B. I will file for a motion for reconsideration as it is hereby provided in Rule 124 Section 16 of the
Rules of Criminal Procedure which says that Reconsideration. — A motion for reconsideration
shall be filed within fifteen (15) days after from notice of the decision or final order of the Court
 of Appeals, with copies served upon the adverse party, setting forth the grounds in support
thereof. The mittimus shall be stayed during the pendency of the motion for reconsideration. No
party shall be allowed a second motion for reconsideration of a judgment or final order.
II
A was found in possession of an unlicensed firearm on October 2, 2017. He was
charged before the RTC for violation of a certain COMELEC Resolution prohibiting
possession of firearm whether licensed or not during election period. A’s arraignment
was set on October 22, 2017. On October 5, 2017, however, the president signed into
law the postponement of the barangay elections scheduled sometime in the last week of
October 2017. If you are the counsel of A what course/s of action will you take to protect
the interest of your client?
II. I will file for the Motion to Quash the information so that the court will review the case and
make its determination since A motion to quash is a request to a court or other tribunal
to render a previous decision or proceeding null or invalid. As well as continuation of trial
since the Rules of Criminal Procedure strictly provides under Rule 119, Section 2 that “Trial
once commenced shall continue from day to day as far as practicable until terminated. It
may be postponed for a reasonable period of time for good cause. (2a)
The court shall, after consultation with the prosecutor and defense counsel, set the case for
continuous trial on a weekly or other short-term trial calendar at the earliest possible time
so as to ensure speedy trial. In no case shall the entire trial period exceed one hundred
eighty (180) days from the first day of trial, except as otherwise authorized by the Supreme
Court. (sec. 8, cir. 38-98).
The time limitations provided under this section and the preceding section shall not apply
where special laws or circulars of the Supreme Court provide for a shorter period of trial. (n)

III

After pleading not guilty to the crime of seduction and before trial, the new

counsel for the accused A filed a motion to quash on the ground that the filing of the

information does not comply with the requirement of Section 5, Rule 110 requiring a

complaint of the offended party to commence a criminal action for seduction. The

motion was granted. A week later, however, the prosecution office filed the same case

but this time through the sworn written complaint of B.

1. Was the court correct in granting the motion to quash?

2. Was the re-filing of the same case allowed by the rules?

III.
1. No.. The motion to quash is hereby invalid since it is clearly stipulated in the Rule 117 of
the Rules of Criminal Procedure particularly in Section 2 under Form and Contents that:
“The motion to quash shall be in writing, signed by the accused or his
counsel and shall distinctly specify its factual and legal grounds. The
 court shall consider no ground other than those stated in the motion,
except lack of jurisdiction over the offense charged. (2a)

2. No. Under Section 7 of the same Rule,  Former conviction or

acquittal; double jeopardy. — When an accused has been convicted or
acquitted, or the case against him dismissed or otherwise terminated
without his express consent by a court of competent jurisdiction, upon a
valid complaint or information or other formal charge sufficient in form
and substance to sustain a conviction and after the accused had pleaded
to the charge, the conviction or acquittal of the accused or the dismissal
of the case shall be a bar to another prosecution for the offense charged,
or for any attempt to commit the same or frustration thereof, or for any
offense which necessarily includes or is necessarily included in the
offense charged in the former complaint or information.

However, the conviction of the accused shall not be a bar to another prosecution for
an offense which necessarily includes the offense charged in the former complaint or
information under any of the following instances:

(a) the graver offense developed due to supervening facts arising from the same
act or omission constituting the former charge;

(b) the facts constituting the graver charge became known or were discovered
only after a plea was entered in the former complaint or information; or

(c) the plea of guilty to the lesser offense was made without the consent of the
prosecutor and of the offended party except as provided in section 1 (f) of Rule
116.

In any of the foregoing cases, where the accused satisfies or serves in whole or in part
the judgment, he shall be credited with the same in the event of conviction for the
graver offense.

Section 3. Grounds. — The accused may move to quash the complaint or information
on any of the following grounds:

(a) That the facts charged do not constitute an offense;

(b) That the court trying the case has no jurisdiction over the offense charged;

(c) That the court trying the case has no jurisdiction over the person of the
accused;
 (d) That the officer who filed the information had no authority to do so;

(e) That it does not conform substantially to the prescribed form;

(f) That more than one offense is charged except when a single punishment for
various offenses is prescribed by law;

(g) That the criminal action or liability has been extinguished;

(h) That it contains averments which, if true, would constitute a legal excuse or
justification; and

(i) That the accused has been previously convicted or acquitted of the offense
charged, or the case against him was dismissed or otherwise terminated without
his express consent. (3a)

There is also no specified time as to when the motion to quash must be

instituted. Under the same rule, the accuse may move to quash the complaint or
information at any time before entering his plea.

3.

IV

As A is a very influential person, the Naga City Police suspected that even the

court personnel in the Regional Trial Courts (RTCs) stationed in Naga City are under

A’s tremendous influence. That is so because search warrants issued by the RTC in

Naga City always yielded nothing as A was tipped or informed in advance about it

before the police could proceed to serve it on A. Thus, policeman X and witnesses

instead went to the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of Pasacao, Camarines Sur to apply for

search warrant. And, finding merit in the testimony of the applicant and his witnesses,

the MTC of Pasacao issued the search warrant sought for. The search was successful

as it yielded the personal properties mentioned in the application for search warrant,

among them were kilograms of shabu. The counsel for A filed a motion to quash the

search warrant on the ground that the MTC of Pasacao has no jurisdiction the over case

as the place to be searched was not located within its territorial jurisdiction, and that the

possible crime committed by A is punishable by imprisonment of more than 6 years.

Was the motion to quash the search warrant meritorious?

No. The search warrant must therefore be issued by a competent court in Naga City since the crime was
committed in the said city. Stipulated under Rule 126 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure Section 2: Court
where application for search warrant shall be filed. — An application for search warrant shall be filed
with the following:

a) Any court within whose territorial jurisdiction a crime was committed.

b) For compelling reasons stated in the application, any court within the judicial region where the crime
was committed if the place of the commission of the crime is known, or any court within the judicial
region where the warrant shall be enforced.

However, if the criminal action has already been filed, the application shall only be made in the court
where the criminal action is pending.

A and B, both Filipinos, are husband and wife. In 1972, A went to the U.S. to

work and eventually became a U.S. citizen after staying there continuously for 5 years.

In 1980, A filed for divorce against B which was granted. A then married C, an

American who died 3 years after the marriage with A. When A, a widower, came back to

the Philippines in 1985, he discovered that B was already happily living with D. Claiming

that under Phil. law B is still married to A, the latter filed a case for adultery against B.

Will the case prosper?

Answer: No. The crimes of adultery and concubinage shall not be prosecuted except
upon a complaint filed by the offended spouse. The offended party cannot institute
criminal prosecution without including the guilty parties, if both alive, nor, in any
case, if the offended party has consented to the offense or pardoned the offenders
(Section 5, Rule 110 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure)

VI

In a collision between Bus 1 and Bus 2, Mr. X, a passenger of Bus 1, died.

Alleging that the incident was due to the recklessness of the driver of Bus 2, the heirs of
Mr. X filed a criminal action for Homicide through Reckless Imprudence against the

driver of Bus 2. After the prosecution has presented a witness in the criminal case, the

heirs of Mr. X filed a civil action for damages against Mr. Y, the owner of Bus 2. The

judge did not allow the filing of the civil action because according to him the civil action

can only be filed until after final judgment is entered in the criminal action.

a. Was the action taken by the judge proper?

Answer: No. Under Rule 111 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure, Prosecution of Civil
Action

Section 1. Institution of criminal and civil actions. — (a) When a criminal action is

instituted, the civil action for the recovery of civil liability arising from the offense
charged shall be deemed instituted with the criminal action unless the offended party
waives the civil action, reserves the right to institute it separately or institutes the civil
action prior to the criminal action.

The reservation of the right to institute separately the civil action shall be made before
the prosecution starts presenting its evidence and under circumstances affording the
offended party a reasonable opportunity to make such reservation.

When the offended party seeks to enforce civil liability against the accused by way of
moral, nominal, temperate, or exemplary damages without specifying the amount
thereof in the complaint or information, the filing fees thereof shall constitute a first
lien on the judgment awarding such damages.

Where the amount of damages, other than actual, is specified in the complaint or
information, the corresponding filing fees shall be paid by the offended party upon the
filing thereof in court.

Except as otherwise provided in these Rules, no filing fees shall be required for actual
damages.

No counterclaim, cross-claim or third-party complaint may be filed by the accused in

the criminal case, but any cause of action which could have been the subject thereof
may be litigated in a separate civil action. (1a)

b. Assuming that instead of filing a civil action against Mr. Y, the heirs of Mr. X filed a civil action
against Mr. Z, the owner of Bus 1, will your answer be the same?
VII

A, a businessman, charged B with the crime of estafa for tricking A to deliver to B

A’s Php1M worth of diamond ring on the pretext that B has a customer who is willing to

buy the ring for Php2M. Per agreement, B will be entitled to 10% of the profit should the

transaction be successful, otherwise B shall return the ring to A within 3 days thereafter.

B neither delivered the proceeds of the sale nor the ring to A. While the case is pending

pre-trial, A filed a civil action for the recovery of the price of the diamond ring with

damages. The judge did not allow the filing of the civil action because according to him

the civil action can only be filed until after final judgment is entered in the criminal

action. Was the action taken by the judge proper?

No. According to Rule 111 Section 1 (b) of the Rules of Criminal Procedure: “The criminal action for
violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 shall be deemed to include the corresponding civil action. No
reservation to file such civil action separately shall be allowed.

Upon filing of the aforesaid joint criminal and civil actions, the offended party shall pay in full the filing
fees based on the amount of the check involved, which shall be considered as the actual damages
claimed. Where the complaint or information also seeks to recover liquidated, moral, nominal,
temperate or exemplary damages, the offended party shall pay additional filing fees based on the
amounts alleged therein. If the amounts are not so alleged but any of these damages are
subsequently awarded by the court, the filing fees based on the amount awarded shall constitute a
first lien on the judgment.

Where the civil action has been filed separately and trial thereof has not yet commenced, it may be
consolidated with the criminal action upon application with the court trying the latter case. If the
application is granted, the trial of both actions shall proceed in accordance with section 2 of this Rule
governing consolidation of the civil and criminal actions. (cir. 57-97)”

VIII

After the filing of an information charging X with HOMICIDE, the prosecution

realized that it failed to consider the allegation of treachery in the sworn statement of

prosecution eyewitness Y. According to Y the attack was so sudden and executed while

the victim W’s back was against the assailant X, thus rendering W defenseless. Murder

instead of homicide should have been filed against X. What shall the prosecutor on

case do if he is to uphold the interest of the state by filing the appropriate criminal

action?
IX

Tipped that A, a suspect for murder, was staying in a house situated in the

middle of a farm owned by B, the police authorities put the place under surveillance.

Assured of A’s presence therein, the police officers proceeded to serve the warrant of

arrest issued against A. Inside the house were A and B eating supper. The police

officers put A and B under arrest. Placed on top of the table where they were eating are:

mound of shabu, a weighing scale, lighter and small plastic sachets. The police

were also able to seize from A one fully loaded 9mm pistol which was found tucked in

his waist. While A and B were being handcuffed, the police searched the house and

found placed inside an adjacent room, a padlocked wooden receptacle which the police

officers forced open in the presence of A and B. Inside the receptacle were 3 bundles

of 1,000 peso bills amounting to hp300k, 45 caliber pistol and 50 heat sealed

plastic sachets containing 10 grams of shabu per sachet.

a. Were the items seized during the arrest of A legally obtained and hence

admissible in evidence?

Page 4 of 5

Midterm Examinations 2020

Criminal Procedure

x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x

b. Was the arrest of B legal?

X was arrested as suspect for the killing of Y. X applied for bail but was denied

by the court on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. According to the court, it has not yet

acquired jurisdiction over the case because X has yet to be formally charged in court. It

further reasoned out that it cannot determine the right amount of bail to grant accused if

a case has not yet been filed in court. Are the court’s arguments justified?

XI

X together with A, B and C, was charged with murder before the RTC for the

killing of Y. The RTC convicted A, B and C for crime but found X guilty only as an
accessory and sentenced to suffer the penalty of prision mayor. On appeal, and before

the records could be forwarded to the court of appeals, X applied for bail. Record

shows, however, that X was previously allowed on probation after having been found

guilty for the crime of serious physical injuries 3 years prior to the incident subject

matter of the present case. As X, if found guilty, cannot be penalized with reclusion

perpetua or life imprisonment, the RTC allowed accused to post bail. Was the court

correct?

XII

A, a 15-year old minor, filed a complaint for seduction against B. Finding

probable cause, the investigating prosecutor filed an information attaching to it the

affidavits of A and her witnesses, the counter-affidavit of B and his witnesses, and his

resolution on the case. Shall the seduction case filed by virtue of the information filed by

the prosecutor prosper?

Yes. Under Rule 110, Section 5 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure. The offended party, even if a minor,
has the right to initiate the prosecution of the offenses of seduction, abduction and acts of
lasciviousness independently of her parents, grandparents, or guardian, unless she is incompetent
or incapable of doing so. Where the offended party, who is a minor, fails to file the complaint, her
parents, grandparents, or guardian may file the same. The right to file the action granted to parents,
grandparents or guardian shall be exclusive of all other persons and shall be exercised successively
in the order herein provided, except as stated in the preceding paragraph.

XIII

A and B are husband and wife, respectively. While the said marriage was still

subsisting A contracted another marriage, this time with C. After the marriage of A and

C came to the knowledge of B, the latter filed a case for bigamy against A. Meanwhile,

C also filed a case for the annulment of her marriage to A on the ground of duress. In

the criminal action for bigamy A moved for the suspension of the proceeding in the

criminal action on the ground that the annulment case filed by c is a prejudicial question.

a. Is the contention of A correct?

b. Suppose that it was A who filed a case for annulment of his

marriage to C on the ground of duress, will your answer be the

same?
XIV

Page 5 of 5

Midterm Examinations 2020

Criminal Procedure

x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x

In a police line-up wherein a complainant is made to identify the person who robbed him of his lap top
computer, X, one of those presented in the line-up, was pointed to by the complainant as the culprit. X,
questioned the validity of the said police line-up on the ground that his right against self-incrimination
was violated and that he was deprived of his right to be represented by counsel. Is X’s contention
correct?

No.. Invoking the right to self-incrimination is to refuse to answer a question because the response could
provide self-incriminating evidence of an illegal act punishable by fines, penalties, or forfeiture.

Historically, the legal protection against self-incrimination was directly related to the question of torture
for extracting information and confessions.

Protection against self-incrimination is implicit in the Miranda rights statement, which protects the
“right to remain silent.” The Supreme Court has held that “a witness may have a reasonable fear of
prosecution and yet be innocent of any wrongdoing. The privilege serves to protect the innocent who
otherwise might be ensnared by ambiguous circumstances.” In the case at bar, X was not yet asked if he
is guilty or not guilty of the offense being charged against him. It was just the personal thinking of the
complainant as to who he thinks is the one that robbed his laptop.

XV

Pending trial of the robbery case against X, the latter’s counsel died. X manifested to

the court that he will be securing the services of counsel of his own choice. The court

allowed X ample time to retain the services of counsel of choice but during the trial

scheduled 2 months after the death of the previous defense counsel, X appeared

without counsel. The court granted him another period of time to secure the services of

counsel. Two (2) other trial schedules have to be cancelled because accused was still

not represented by counsel. On the next scheduled trial date, the judge proceeded with

the trial despite the lack of counsel for X. The court convicted X but the latter appealed

the verdict claiming he was denied his right to counsel. According to X the court should

have appointed counsel de officio to represent him during trial. Was the appeal meritorious?
Answer: Yes. Under Section 6 of Rule 116. Duty of court to inform accused of his right to counsel.
— Before arraignment, the court shall inform the accused of his right to counsel and ask him if he
desires to have one. Unless the accused is allowed to defend himself in person or has employed a
counsel of his choice, the court must assign a counsel de oficio to defend him. (6a)

GOOD LUCK !