DELA CRUZ, BARON TIANGCO

BSCRIMINOLOGY - 4A

Criminal Procedure short quiz

1. After the requisite proceedings, the Provincial Prosecutor filed and

Information for homicide against Peter. 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
Peter. 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. Was there a legal basis for the court to deny the motion?
Answer it with at least three sentences, a mere yes or no answer
will earn no credit.

-Yes, whether regional prosecutor’s office abused its

discretion. Taking into account the motion for reconsideration
filed by private respondents upon whom criminal charges had
been issued but they had not yet been taken into the custody
of the law. And, amidst being aware of the prosecutors’
resolution, filing the homicide info with the secretary of
justice’s office.

2. Fianza was charged with two counts of violation of R.A. No. 7160
before the RTC. The RTC found Fianza guilty beyond reasonable
doubt which was upheld by the CA. Fianza assails his conviction
for the prosecution's failure to specify in the Information in the
 Criminal Case the date of commission of the offense and to
indicate in the Information in both cases that the complained acts
were performed with a child exploited in prostitution or subjected to
other sexual abuse in violation of his right to be informed of the
nature and cause of the accusations against him. Is the contention
of Fianza correct? Answer it with at least three sentences, a mere
yes or no answer will earn no credit.

- Given that the victim was only a child at the time of the
incidents, the Court believes it is appropriate to change the
crime for which Fianza was charged to Acts of
Lasciviousness under Article 336 of the RPC. In cases
where the child subjected to sexual abuse through
lascivious conduct is under the age of twelve (12), the
offender should be prosecuted under Article 336 of the
RPC, but face the harsher penalty of reclusion temporal in
its medium period under Section 5 of the RPC.

3. Mike was charged with libel. The information however failed to

allege that complainant Roy was a resident of the place over which
the court has jurisdiction. May Mike file a motion to quash based
on such defect in the Information? Answer it with at least three
sentences, a mere yes or no answer will earn no credit.

-Courts must give the prosecution the chance to change the

information when a motion to quash an information is based
on a flaw that can be fixed by amendment.

4. Democrito Paras was charged with one count of rape. The

Regional Trial Court (RTC) found Paras guilty as charged which
was affirmed by the Court of Appeals (CA). Paras appealed the
decision of CA before the Supreme Court. However, the Court was
informed that Paras had died at the New Bilibid Prison Hospital. Is
the civil liability of Paras extinguished together with his criminal
 liability in case of death pending appeal? Answer it with at least
three sentences, a mere yes or no answer will earn no credit.

- The death of the accused while his conviction is under appeal

extinguishes both his criminal and civil liability. The death of the
accused prior to final judgment ends his criminal liability but not
his civil liability, which arises directly from and is solely based
on the offense committed.

5. May a prosecutor be compelled by mandamus to file a complaint

regarding a complaint filed which he previously dismissed for lack
of merit after preliminary investigation? Answer it with at least
three sentences, a mere yes or no answer will earn no credit.

- Regardless of any provision of law to the contrary, no

information for an offense cognizable by the Court of First
Instance shall be filed by the provincial or city fiscal or his
assistants, or by a state prosecutor, unless a preliminary
investigation has been conducted by a judge of first
instance, city or municipal judge, or other officer in
accordance with law and the Rules of Court of the
Philippines.