1.

The requisites that must be present before a court can exercise its criminal jurisdiction
are:
- The offense is one which the court is by law authorized to take cognizance of
- The offense must have been committed within its territorial jurisdiction.
- The court must have acquired jurisdiction over the person charged with the offense

2. Complaint filed with the Prosec. Office v Filed directly with the court

As to who executes: In a complaint filed with the PO; the offended party or the peace
officer authorized with enforcement of the law may execute, while in a Complaint filed
with the court, the offended party or the prosecutor will execute the same.

1st” Filed in the name of the private offended party in his capacity; 2nd filed under People
of the PH as a representative

3. No, the filing for Motion for Reinvestigation is not proper.

According to the law, if one wishes to have a reinvestigation conducted, what he should
file with the court is a Motion for Leave to file Motion for Reinvestigation.
In this case, Maria is filing a direct Motion for Reinvestigation which the Court cannot
grant.

I will not recall the Warrant of Arrest because I as Judge am not duty bound to grant this
motion and order the Prosecutor for a Reinvestigation.

3. The express consent of the accused in a Prov Dismissal is necessary because this consent
will be the basis whether or not the case may be revived within the periods prescribed by
law.

Yes. Atty. Abang may still prosecute the case, provided it is still within the period
prescribed by law for the revival of the case and if it is proven that Double Jeopardy has
not set in.

4. Appeal may be denied because:

1. Pedro was not denied of his constitutional right to be informed of the nature and cause
of accusation against him. Under the law, the test of sufficiency of information if whether
it enables a person of common understanding to know the charge against him.
In this case, what was filed was a violation to Sec 5 of RA 7610 and the he was convicted
of the same offense, in compliance with the constitutional right of an a accused to be
informed of the nature and cause of accusation against him.
2. Offense proved which is included in the offense charged.
5. No, his right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him was
NOT violated.
 Under the law, ff the Rationale Variance Doctrine, if an accused was convicted of a lesser
offense which is necessarily included than which is charged, he may be convicted of the
offense proved. This is because under said said doctrine, the Accused was given an
opportunity to defend himself in the graver offense which necessarily included the lesser
offense.
In this case, John was charged with Intentional Felony but was convicted of Falsification
through reckless imprudence, which are of lesser degree to another. His right then was
not violated in accordance to law.

5. Elements of a prejudicial question:

1. The previously instituted civil action involves an issue similar or intimately related to
the issue raised in the subsequent crim action
2. The resolution of such issue determines whether or not the crim action can proceed

Yes, I will grant the Motion for suspension of crim action on the ground that a prejudicial
question is involved.

6. Roger’s death will extinguish his criminal liability but not as to the civil liability
involved.
Under the law, death of an accused pending appeal of his conviction extinguishes criminal
liability, but the civil liability based on other sources aside from delict, will survive.

7. Yes. The Rules of Court provides that filing a Complaint for a Violation of a City
Ordinance w the OCP will toll the running of the period of prescription.