CRIMPRO

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.

Continuation 6 – 10: Please copy-paste the following questions to the first one I
sent 1-5. Then submit it in single file to blairdura@outlook.com

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

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.
CRIMPRO

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. 

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

exhaustively. 10 pts.

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.