Q1 - X was riding his bicycle along a designated bike lane when, unfortunately, a car

driven by Y, a successful immigration lawyer suddenly swerved towards him, hitting X who
sustained serious physical injuries. X filed a complaint and the prosecution filed a criminal case
against Y who, however, died 8 months later in a Covid-19 hospital in Manila. X learned of Y’s
death and he now comes to you for advice. As a student law practitioner, what advice would you
give to X? Explain.

Answer: I will advice X to file a separate civil action predicated on a different source of obligation
other than delict, such as quasi-delict. Since the civil liability attached to the criminal case against Y is
extinguished due to the accused’s death prior to his final conviction by the Court, X cannot recover in the
said criminal case anymore.

In the case of People vs. Culas, the Supreme Court reiterated their ruling that where the civil
liability predicated on a different source of obligation other than delict, an action for recovery may be
pursued by way of filing a separate civil action. This separate civil action may be enforced either against
the executor or administrator or the estate of the accused, depending on the source of obligation upon
which it is based.

Here, Y died before his final conviction, hence, his criminal liability and civil liability attached to
the criminal case were already extinguished. Action for recovery of civil liability may be instituted by filing
a separate civil action based on quasi-delict.

Q2 - In order to recover unlawfully acquired funds and properties, the government filed
several forfeiture cases against defendant X. The latter filed a motion to dismiss assailing the
jurisdiction of the court over his person. This motion was denied and X filed a motion for
reconsideration and/or to admit attached Answer setting forth his affirmative defenses with a
claim for damages. Defendant also subsequently filed other pleadings including a second motion
for reconsideration; motion to consolidate forfeiture case with other cases, etc., which were all
denied by the court on the ground that by filing several pleadings and asking affirmative relief
from the court, defendant had voluntarily submitted himself to the jurisdiction of the court. Was
the court correct in its position? Explain your answer.

Answer: No. The court is incorrect. In Garcia vs. Sandiganbayan, the Supreme Court ruled that a
defendant who files a motion to dismiss assailing the jurisdiction of the court over his person, together
with other grounds raised therein, is not deemed to have appeared voluntarily before the court. The rule
on voluntary appearance means that such voluntary appearance is without qualification.

In the case at bar, the defendant filed the following pleading: a) motion to dismiss; b) motion for
reconsideration and/or admit answer; c) second motion for reconsideration; and d) motion to consolidate
forfeiture case with other cases. The foregoing pleadings were filed by the defendant solely for special
appearance with the purpose of challenging the jurisdiction of the court over X’s person. It was further
ruled by the Supreme Court in the abovementioned case that such special appearance is not tantamount
to estoppel or a waiver by the movant of his/her objection to jurisdiction over his/her person.

Thus, the filing of a motion to dismiss challenging the jurisdiction of the court even if other
grounds were invoked does not constitute a voluntary submission to the jurisdiction of the court.

Q3 - W filed a complaint for concubinage against her husband H. Upon arraignment, H

pleaded not guilty. The trial was repeatedly postponed due to the intervention of the parents of W
and H who wanted both to reconcile for the sake of their two (2) children. Almost three years after
the filing of the case, W has not yet testified in court such that in the latest scheduled hearing, the
prosecutor was constrained to ask for a provisional dismissal of the case as he believed that W
and H had already reconciled and in fact were seen together in Boracay. The court approved the
motion and dismissed the case provisionally. Later, however, W wanted to revive the case as H
went back to live with his paramour. H vehemently opposed the motion to revive, alleging that the
dismissal had already become permanent and reviving the same would place him in double
jeopardy. As a Judge, how would you decide W’s motion? Explain your answer.

Answer: As the Judge, I would dismiss the motion for revival filed by W.

In the case of Co vs. New Prosperity Plastic Products, the Supreme Court enumerated the
requisites of a provisional dismissal. One requisite among others is that the prosecution with the express
conformity of the accused or the accused himself moves for a provisional dismissal of the case, or both
the prosecution and the accused move for a provisional dismissal of the case. In the case at bar, the
express consent of H was not present.

Moreover, Section 7, Rule 117 of the Rules on Criminal Procedure provides that when the case
against the accused is dismissed or terminated without his express consent, it shall be a bar to another
prosecution for the offense charged. Based from the foregoing, reviving the same will constitute double
jeopardy. Hence, the motion for revival must be dismissed.

Q4 - X stands accused of the crime of Rape in an Information which in part alleged that he,
with lewd designs and with force and intimidation, unlawfully undressed the victim and then
inserted his finger into her vagina and thereafter his penis thereby succeeding in having carnal
knowledge with her. The RTC found X not guilty of Rape but found him guilty of qualified
seduction. X appealed the ruling to the CA but the appellate court reversed the RTC ruling and
found X guilty of two (2) offenses, namely, Rape and Lascivious Conduct. X now claims that the
CA erred in convicting him of such offenses when in fact the prosecution had charged him with
only one (1) Information for Rape and upon which he was already acquitted. Is X’s position
correct? Explain.

Answer: X’s argument is devoid of merit.

In the case of Pendoy vs. Court of Appeals, the Supreme Court observed that a perusal of the
allegations in the Information, the accused was actually charged with two offenses, namely, rape and
lascivious conduct. Section 13, Rule 110 of the Rules on Criminal Procedure provides that an Information
must charge only one offense. In connection with this rule is Section 3, Rule 120 of the same Rule which
provides that the court may convict the accused of as many as are charged and improved if he/she fails to
object the defect before trial.

Here, X failed to object and file a motion to quash the Information on the ground that more than
one offense is charged before pleading to the same. As a result, he is deemed to have waived such
defect and he can be convicted of the crimes of rape and lascivious conduct.

Q5 -A case for murder was filed against X and Y in the RTC. In issuing the warrant of
arrest, the Judge based his finding of probable cause on the resolution of the investigating
prosecutor and the attached documents of the preliminary investigation. X and Y later filed an
administrative case against the judge in the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA), Supreme
Court, claiming that the Judge failed to fully perform his duty in determining probable cause as he
should have examined the complainant and her witnesses whose affidavits appear to be
fabricated and prepared by one and the same person. How should the OCA resolve this
complaint? Explain your answer.

Answer: The Office of the Court Administrator should dismiss the administrative case filed against
the Judge.
 In the case of Soliven vs. Makasiar, the Supreme Court explained the duty of the Judge to
determine probable cause in the issuance of a warrant of arrest as mandated by the Constitution. The
said constitutional provision does not mandatorily require the Judge to personally examine the
complainant and the witnesses. Instead, the Judge may opt to personally evaluate the report and
supporting documents submitted by the prosecutor, or he may disregard the prosecutor’s report and
require the submission of supporting affidavits of witnesses.

Here, the Judge examined the affidavits of the complainant and the witnesses in determining
probable cause for the issuance of the warrant of arrest. Based from the foregoing, the Judge sufficiently
complied with the constitutional mandate for personal determination of probable cause before issuing the
warrants of arrest.

Q6 - At 64 years old, X was charged with Rape in the RTC of Tuguegarao, Cagayan. On the
scheduled date of arraignment, the Information was read and translated to him in the IBANAG
dialect and he pleaded guilty with the assistance of his counsel from the PAO. The presiding
Judge then personally asked the accused if he fully understood the import of his plea and the
accused answered in the affirmative. The presiding Judge also asked him if he knows that by
pleading guilty to the crime charged against him, he could be sentenced to suffer the penalty of
reclusion perpetua which is imprisonment for so many years that he could probably die of old age
in prison. The accused nodded his head with tears welling in his eyes. The court then proceeded
to trial, ordering the prosecution to present evidence to prove the guilt of the accused beyond
reasonable doubt. After trial, the court promulgated its decision convicting the accused of the
crime of RAPE and sentenced him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and to indemnify his
victim. Was the conviction of X correct? Explain your answer.

Answer: Yes. The conviction of X is proper.

In the case of People vs. Mira, the Supreme Court sustained the conviction of the accused
despite his improvident plea of guilt. The Court explained that convictions based on an improvident plea
of guilt are set aside only if such plea is the sole basis of the judgment. If the trial court relied on sufficient
and credible evidence in finding the accused guilty, the judgment must be sustained, because then it is
predicated not merely on the guilty plea of the accused but also on evidence proving his commission of
the offense charged.

Here, the guilt of the accused was sufficiently established by the prosecution during the trial
which became the basis of the court’s decision of conviction.

Q7 - For value received, X issued a check in favor of Y but the same was later dishonored
upon due presentment for lack of sufficient funds. As X failed to make payment despite demand, Y
proceeded to file separate cases for violation of BP 22 in the Metropolitan Trial Court and Estafa in
the RTC based on the same transaction. Y hired a private prosecutor to appear in his behalf in
both courts with regard to X’s civil liability but this was opposed by X, alleging forum shopping
and double recovery. As a judge, how would you rule on X’s opposition? Explain your answer.

Answer: If I were the judge in the instant case, I will allow the appearance of the private
prosecutor to appear before the court on behalf of Y with regard to X’s civil liability. In the case of
Rodriguez vs. Ponferrada, the Supreme Court ruled that private prosecutor is allowed to intervene and
participate in the proceedings of the estafa case for the purpose of prosecuting the attached civil liability
arising from the issuance of the checks involved which is also the subject matter of the pending BP22
cases.

The opposition of X due to forum shopping and double recovery is without merit. In the Rogriguez
case, the Supreme Court further ruled that the possible single liability arising from the act of issuing a
bouncing check can be the subject of both civil actions deemed instituted with the crime of estafa and the
BP 22 violation prosecution. Since both remedies are simultaneously available to Y, there can be no
forum shopping. In the same case, the Supreme Court also held that a recovery by the offended party
under one remedy necessarily bars that under the other. The rationale behind the proscription against
double recovery for the same act or omission stems from the fundamental rule against unjust enrichment.

Thus, the private prosecutor is allowed to appear on Y’s behalf in both the estafa and BP22 case
with regard to X’s civil liability.

Q8 - X, the Treasurer of AAA Corp. issued a check in favor of BBB Corp. to pay for fuel
consumed by the company’s delivery vehicles but the same check was later dishonored lack of
sufficient funds. As AAA Corp. and X failed to make payment despite demand, BBB Corp.
proceeded to file a complaint for violation of BP 22 against X and AAA Corp. Claiming that he is a
mere officer of AAA Corp. and not having benefitted from such transaction, X now seeks that he
be excluded. On the other hand, BBB Corp. claims that X is jointly liable with AAA Corp. for civil
liability, either upon acquittal or conviction, as the fuel was consumed for the legitimate business
activities of AAA Corp. The information against X and AAA Corp. was filed in court anyway. As a
Judge, how would you resolve the issue raised by BBB Corp.? Explain your answer.

Answer: If I were the Judge, I will rule that the claim of BBB Corp. is incorrect.

In the case of Pilipinas Shell Petroleum vs. Duque, the Supreme Court held that a corporate
officer who issues a bouncing corporate check can only be held civilly liable when he is convicted. Once
acquitted of the offense of violating Batas Pambansa Blg. 22, a corporate officer is discharged from any
civil liability arising from the issuance of the worthless check in the name of the corporation he represents.

In the case at bar, if X will be acquitted in the Information filed by BBB Corp, then he will be
discharged from any civil liability. On the other hand, if X will be convicted in the same Information, he is
civilly liable.

Q9 - On the scheduled date of promulgation the prosecutor and the defense counsel
appeared in court. The accused failed to appear in court prompting the Judge to order the Clerk of
Court to read the decision which the latter did. The Judge then issued an order for the arrest of
the accused and the cancellation of the bail posted by him with an order for the bondsman to
explain why no judgment shall be rendered against its undertaking. The accused subsequently
learned of his conviction and he now comes to you for assistance, signifying his intention to file a
motion for reconsideration or an appeal. As a student law practitioner, what advice would you
give to the accused? Explain.

Answer: As a law student practitioner, I will advise the accused to file a special civil action of
prohibition and certiorari under Sections 1 and 2 of Rule 65 of the Rules of Court instead.

In the case of Javier vs. Gonzalez, the Supreme Court reiterated its ruling in Paredes vs.
Gopengco wherein it held that offended parties in criminal cases have sufficient interest and personality
as persons aggrieved to file a special civil action of prohibition and certiorari under Sections 1 and 2 of
Rule 65. This ruling is in line with the spirit of adopting a liberal construction of the Rules of Court in order
to promote its object. In the same case, it was held that the filing of a motion for reconsideration to
question a decision of conviction can only be resorted to if the accused did not jump bail, but appeared in
court to face the promulgation of judgment.

Here, the accused jumped bail, thus, the remedy of filing a motion for reconsideration is not
available to him. Thus, the proper remedy is to file special civil action of prohibition and certiorari under
Sections 1 and 2 of Rule 65 of the Rules of Court.
 Q10 - X was arrested for allegedly raping Y, a young girl from San Miguel, Echague which
is a far-flung Barangay close to the Sierra Madre mountains. X applied for bail in the RTC which
later set the hearing for bail with notice to the accused and counsel, and to the prosecutor
assigned to the case. On the scheduled date of hearing, however, the prosecutor manifested that
despite his efforts in calling and texting Y on her number, she failed to respond. The prosecutor
then offered in evidence the investigating prosecutor’s resolution, including the victim’s affidavit
and that of other witnesses. Thereafter, the RTC approved the application for bail on the ground
that the prosecution failed to establish that the evidence of guilt is strong. Was the RTC correct in
approving X’s application for bail? Explain your answer.

Answer: Yes. The RTC correctly granted X’s application for bail.

In the case of the Office of the Court Administrator vs. Hon. Fernando F. Flor, the Supreme Court
reiterated the basic rule that bail cannot be allowed without a prior hearing to a person charged with an
offense punishable with reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment. In such case, bail is a matter of
discretion and its grant or denial hinges on the issue of whether the evidence of guilt against the accused
is strong. However, the determination of the requisite evidence can only be reached after due hearing.
Thus, a judge must first evaluate the prosecution’s evidence.

In the case at bar, a hearing was conducted to determine if the guilt of the accused was strong. In
the exercise of the court’s sound discretion, the RTC granted the application for bail on the ground that
the evidence of guilt was not strong.