Criminal Procedure

Final Exam (2nd part)

VINCE BRYAN R. SAN PABLO

1) Assume that prior to arraignment, BONG NAVARRA filed a petition for bail. When the
court resolved the petition, the court granted him the right to post bail in the amount of
Php1,000,000.00 subject to the following conditions:

I. He must be present at all scheduled hearings of his case and is not entitled to a
waiver of appearance during the trial.
II. In case of absence, his bail bond shall be automatically cancelled and forfeited, a
warrant for arrest shall be issued, and the case shall proceed to trial in absentia;
and
III. The approval of the bail bond shall be made only after arraignment.

Are all these conditions valid? Why? (15%)

No. Not all the conditions are valid.
According to the Rules of Court, under Rule 114 section 2, all kinds of bail are subject to
the following conditions:
(a) The undertaking shall be effective upon approval, and unless cancelled, shall remain
in force at all stages of the case until promulgation of the judgment of the Regional Trial
Court, irrespective of whether the case was originally filed in or appealed to it;
(b) The accused shall appear before the proper court whenever required by the court of
these Rules;
(c) The failure of the accused to appear at the trial without justification and despite due
notice shall be deemed a waiver of his right to be present thereat. In such case, the trial
may proceed in absentia; and
(d) The bondsman shall surrender the accused to the court for execution of the final
judgment.
In this case, the condition of bail provided were incomplete, the effectivity of the bail was
not provided. The 1st condition provided in this case was contrary to the original
condition which is the waiver of the right to be present thereat. The person who will
surrender the accused to the court for the final judgement was also not indicated.
Therefore, due to the discrepancy between the general conditions of the bail and the
conditions provided in this case, not all the conditions are valid.

2) Assume that it was only after the arraignment that BONG NAVARRA filed a petition for
bail, which was opposed by the prosecution. During the bail hearing, the prosecution
presented ten (10) witnesses. Among these witnesses were PMaj. DENNIS CORNELIO,
PSSg CEDRIC YEE, Patrolman PAT ALANO, “Si Kap”, “si media representative”, and
si “DOJ representative”. The prosecution, however, did not present the CI to testify.

After the bail hearing, the court granted the petition and allowed BONG NAVARRA to
post bail in the amount of Php1,000,000.00.

Eventually, pre-trial proceedings were conducted, and subsequently, trial ensued. On the
scheduled presentation of initial evidence for the prosecution, the latter manifested that
they were no longer presenting any additional evidence. Hence, the prosecution already
rested its case.

Instead of presenting its four (4) witness, counsel for BONG NAVARRA filed a
demurrer to evidence without leave of court. The court denied the demurrer.

a. May the court deny the demurrer to evidence filed by BONG NAVARRA’s
counsel? Why? (5%)
 Criminal Procedure
Final Exam (2nd part)
VINCE BRYAN R. SAN PABLO
Yes. The court may deny the demurrer to evidence filed by BONG NAVARRA’s
counsel.

According to the Rules of Court, under Rule 119, section 23, After the prosecution
rests its case, the court may dismiss the action on the ground of insufficiency of
evidence.

In this case, the court may deny the demurrer to evidence since the prosecution
already rested its case.

Therefore, the court may deny the demurrer to evidence filed by Bong Navarra’s
counsel. The case will be submitted for judgment based on the evidence for the
prosecution.

b. Assuming that the court has the discretion to deny the demurrer to evidence, may
BONG NAVARRA adduce evidence to support his defense after the court’s denial of
his demurrer to evidence? Why? (5%)

No. Bong Navarra may not adduce evidence to support his defense after the court’s
denial of his demurrer to evidence.

According to the Rules of Court, under Rule 119, section 23, If the court denies the
demurrer to evidence filed without leave of court, the accused waives the right to
present evidence and submits the case for judgment based on the evidence for the
prosecution.

In this case, if the demurrer to evidence without leave of court has been denied, the
accused waives the right to present evidence and submits the case for judgment based
on the evidence for the prosecution.

Therefore, Bong Navarra may not adduce evidence to support his defense after the
court’s denial of his demurrer to evidence.

3) As stated above, there were four (4) witnesses for the defense. The last witness for the
defense was BONG NAVARRA himself. After he was presented, the defense rested its
case. As there were no longer rebuttal and sur-rebuttal evidence from the prosecution and
defense, respectively, the case was submitted for decision. Subsequently, a notice for
promulgation of judgment was issued, which was duly received by BONG NAVARRA.

On promulgation day, BONG NAVARRA did not appear. It was only the counsel of
BONG NAVARRA who appeared, but failed to satisfactorily explain the absence of
BONG NAVARRA. The judgment was conviction. The judge then ordered that the
judgment of conviction be entered in the criminal docket and that BONG NAVARRA’s
counsel be furnished a copy. A motion for reconsideration was timely filed by BONG
NAVARRA’s counsel.

The prosecution filed an opposition to the motion for reconsideration of BONG

NAVARRA on the ground that the court cannot take cognizance of it because BONG
NAVARRA failed to appear without justifiable cause during the promulgation of his
case.

Was the prosecution correct in its opposition? Why? (15%)

Yes, the prosecution was correct in its opposition.

According to the Rules of Court, under Rule 120, If the conviction is for a light offense,
the judgment may be pronounced in the presence of his counsel or representative. If the
 Criminal Procedure
Final Exam (2nd part)
VINCE BRYAN R. SAN PABLO
judgment is for conviction and the failure of the accused to appear was without justifiable
cause, he shall lose the remedies available in these rules against the judgment and the
court shall order his arrest.

In this case, Bong Navarra’s offense was not a light offense, thus, the judgment should be
promulgated by reading it in the presence of the accused. Bong Navarra’s counsel also
failed to satisfactorily explain and provide justifiable cause for the absence of Bong
Navarra, hence, losing the remedies available in these rules against the judgment, which
includes the motion for reconsideration.

Therefore, the prosecution was correct in its opposition.