1.

Actions; BP22; Demurrer to Evidence (2003)

In an action for violation of Batas Pambansa Big. 22, the court granted the accused’s 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 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
1|Page
 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
complainant’s 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 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
2|Page
 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