REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW BY: AMiR

DIAGNOSTIC TEST

I.

A. When does a public prosecutor conduct an inquest instead of a preliminary investigation?

When the accused was arrested validly without a warrant of arrest.

When the offender is arrested in flagrante delicto without a warrant of arrest, an inquest proceeding should be conducted
and thereafter, a case may be filed in court even without the requisite preliminary investigation.

B. When is a bail a matter of judicial discretion?

Bail is a matter of judicial discretion:

1.Before conviction by the RTC of an offense punishable by death, reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment; and
2.After conviction by the RTC of an offense not punishable by death, reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment.

C. Give at least two instances when a peace officer or a private person may make a valid warrantless arrest.

The following are the instances when a peace officer or a private person may make a valid warrantless arrest:
1.When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed,
is actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense;
2.When an offense has just been committed and
he has probable cause to believe
based on personal knowledge of facts or circumstances
that the person to be arrested has committed it; and
3.When the person to be arrested is an escaped prisoner.

II.

Boy Maton, a neighborhood tough guy, was arrested by a police officer on suspicion that he was keeping prohibited drugs
in his clutch bag. When Boy Maton was searched immediately after the arrest, the officer found and recovered 10 sachets
of shabu neatly tucked in the inner linings of the clutch bag. At the time of his arrest, Boy Maton was watching a basketball
game being played in the town plaza, and he was cheering for his favorite team. He was subsequently charged with illegal
possession of dangerous drugs, and he entered a plea of not guilty when he was arraigned.

During the trial, Boy Maton moved for the dismissal of the information on the ground that facts revealed that he had been
illegally arrested. He further moved for the suppression of the evidence confiscated from his as being the consequence of
the illegal arrest, hence, the fruit of a poisonous tree.

The trial court, in denying the motion of Boy Maton, explained that at the time the motion were filed, Boy Maton had
already waived the right to raise the issue fo the legality of the arrest. The trial court observed that, pursuant to the Rules of
Court, Boy Maton, as the accused, should have assailed the validity of the arrest before entering his plea to the information.
Hence, the trial court opined that any adverse consequence of the alleged illegal arrest had also been equally waived.

Comment on the ruling of the trial court.

1.

The ruling of the court denying the motion for dismissal of the information on the ground of illegal arrest is proper.

Under the Rules of Criminal Procedure, the accused's failure to file a motion to quash before plea is a waiver of the
objection to lack of personal jurisdiction or of the objection to an illegal arrest.

Here, Boy Maton entered a plea without filing a motion to quash on the ground of lack of personal jurisdiction.

Hence, he is deemed to have waived the ground of illegal arrest which is subsumed under lack of personal jurisdiction.

2.

However, the ruling denying the motion to suppress evidence is not correct.

The Supreme Court has held that a waiver of an illegal, warrantless arrest does not carry with it a waiver of the
inadmissibility of evidence seized during an illegal warrantless arrest. A waiver of an illegal arrest is not a waiver of an
illegal search. The Constitution provides that evidence seized in violation of the right against illegal search is inadmissible in
evidence.

Here, the evidence seized was by virtue of an illegal search since the arrest was illegal.

Hence, such evidence may be suppressed.

REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW BY: AMiR

III.

An information for murder was filed against Rapido. The RTC Judge, after personally evaluating the prosecutor's resolution,
documents and parties' affidavits submitted by the prosecutor, found probable cause and issued a warrant of arrest.
Rapido's lawyer examined the rollo of the case and found it only contained the copy of the information, the submissions of
the prosecutor and a copy of the warrant of arrest. Immediately, Rapido's counsel filed a motion to quash the arrest
warrant for being void, citing as grounds:

A. The judge before issuing the warrant did not personally conduct a searching examination of the prosecution witnesses
in violation of his client's constitutionally-mandated rights;

B. There was no prior order finding probable cause before the judge issued the arrest warrant.

May the warrant of arrest be quashed on the grounds cited by Rapido's counsel? State your reason for each ground.

No. The warrant of arrest may not be quashed on the grounds cited by Rapido's counsel.

A. The SC has held in Soliven v Makasiar, that Section 2 of Article III of the Constitution does not mandatorily require the
judge to personally examine the complainant and his witnesses. The judge may opt to personally evaluate the report and
supporting documents submitted regarding the existence of probable cause and on the basis thereof issue a warrant of
arrest.

B. There is no requirement of a prior order by the judge finding probable cause. The SC has held that the judge may rely
upon the resolution of the investigating prosecutor provided that he personally evaluates the same and the affidavits and
supporting documents, which he did.

IV.

A. Engr. Magna Nakaw, the District Engineer of the DPWH in the Province of Walang Progreso, and Mr Pork Chop, a
private contractor, were both charged in the Office of the Ombudsman for violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt
Practices Act under a conspiracy theory.

While the charges were undergoing investigation in the Office of the Ombudsman, Engr Magna Nakaw passed away.
Mr Pork Chop immediately filed a motion to terminate the investigation and to dismiss the charges against him, arguing
that because he was charged in conspiracy to speak of and, consequently, any legal ground to hold him for trial had
been extinguished.

Rule on the motion to terminate filed by Mr. Pork Chop, with brief reasons.

Mr Pork Chop's motion to terminate the investigation before the Office of the Ombudsman is denied.

In a case involving similar facts, the Supreme Court held that the death of a co-conspirator, even if he was the lone public
officer, did not mean that the allegation of conspiracy to violate the Anti-Graft Law could no longer be proved or that the
alleged conspiracy was already expunged. The only thing extinguished by the death of a co-conspirator was his criminal
liability. His death did not extinguish the crime nor did it remove the basis of the charge of conspiracy between him and
private respondent.

B. Tomas was criminally charged with serious physical injuries allegedly committed against Darvin. During the pendency
of the criminal case, Darvin filed a separate civil action for damages based on the injuries he had sustained.

Tomas filed a motion to dismiss the separate civil action on the ground of litis pendentia, pointing out that when the
criminal action was filed against him, the civil action to recover the civil liability from the offense charged was also
deemed instituted. He insisted that the basis of the separate civil action was the very same act that gave rise to the
criminal action.

Rule on Tomas' Motion to Dismiss, with brief reasons.

Tomas' motion to dismiss on the ground of litis pendentia should be denied.

In cases of physical injuries, a civil action for damages, entirely separate and distinct from the criminal action, may be
brought by the injured party. Such civil action shall proceed independently of the criminal action and hence, may not be
dismissed on the ground of litis pendentia
REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW BY: AMiR

V.

Under Section 5, Rule 113, a warrantless arrest is allowed when an offense has just been committed and the peace officer
has probable cause to believe, based on his personal knowledge of facts or circumstances, that the person to be arrested
has committed it. A policeman approaches you for advice and asks you how he will execute a warrantless arrest against a
murder who escaped after killing a person. The policeman arrived two (2) hours after the killing and a certain Max was
allegedly the killer per information given by a witness. He asks you to clarify the following:

A. How long after the commission of the crime can he still execute the warrantless arrest?

The arrest must be made within 24 hours after the commission of the crime. Where the arrest took place a day after the
commission of the crime, it cannot be said that an offense has just been committed.

B. What does "personal knowledge of the facts and circumstances that the person to be arrested committed it" mean?

"Personal knowledge of the facts and circumstances that the person to be arrested committed it" means personal
knowledge not of the commission of the crime itself but of facts and circumstances which would lead to the conclusion
that the person to be arrested has probably committed the crime. Such personal knowledge arises from reasonably worthy
information in the arresting person's possession coupled with his own observation and fair inferences therefrom that the
person arrested has probably committed the offense.

VI.

A. What elements should concur for circumstantial evidence to be sufficient for conviction?

The following elements should concur for circumstantial evidence to be sufficient for conviction:
1.There is more than one circumstance;
2.The facts from which the inferences are derived are proven.
3.The combination of all the circumstances is such as to produce
a conviction beyond reasonable doubt.

B. What is a tender of excluded evidence?

Tender of excluded evidence is the remedy of a party

when the evidence he has offered is excluded by the court.

If documentary or object evidence is excluded by the court,

the offeror may have the same attached to or made part of the record.

If the evidence excluded is oral,

the offeror may state for the record
the name and other personal circumstances of the witness and
the substance of the proposed testimony.

VII.

Police officers arrested Mr Druggie in a buy-bust operation and confiscated from him 10 sachets of shabu and several
marked genuine peso bills worth P5,000 used as the buy-bust money during the buy-bust operation.

At the trial of Mr Druggie for violation of RA 9165, the Prosecution offered in evidence, among others, photocopies of the
confiscated marked genuine peso bills. The photocopies were offered to prove that Mr Druggie had engaged at the time of
his arrest in the illegal selling of dangerous drugs.

Invoking the Best Evidence Rule, Atty. Maya Bang, the defense counsel, objected to the admissibility of the photocopies of
the confiscated marked genuine peso bills.

Should the trial judge sustain the objection of the defense counsel? Briefly explain your answer.

No, the trial judge should not sustain the objection that invokes the best evidence rule.

The Supreme Court has held that the best evidence rule applies only to documentary evidence, not to object or testimonial
evidence.

Here, the marked money is object, not documentary evidence since it is being offered to prove not its contents but its
existence and use in the buy-bust operation.
REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW BY: AMiR

VIII.

Immediately before he died of gunshot wounds to his chest, Venancio told the attending physician, in a very feeble voice,
that it was Arnulfo, his co-worker, who had shot him. Venancio added that it was also Arnulfo who had shot Vicente, the
man whose cadaver was lying on the bed beside him.

In the prosecution of Arnulfo for the criminal killing of Venancio and Vicente, are all the statements of Venancio admissible
as dying declarations? Explain your answer.

No, not all the statements of Venancio are admissible as dying declarations.

Under the Rules on Evidence, a dying declaration is admissible as an exception to teh hearsay rule provided that such
declaration relates to the cause of the declarant's death.

Venancio's statement that it was Arnulfo who shot him is admissible sas a dying declaration. The same related to Venancio's
own demise. It may be inferred that Venancio had consciousness of his impending death since he suffered gunshots wounds
to his chest which would necessarily be mortal wounds.

However, Venancio's statement that it was Arnulfo who shot Vicente is not admissible as a dying declaration since it did not
relate to the cause of the declarant's death but to the death of another person.

IX.

In an attempt to discredit and impeach a prosecution witness in a homicide case, the defense counsel called to the stand a
person who had been the boyhood friend and next-door neighbor of the prosecution witness for 30 years. One question
that the defense counsel asked of the impeaching witness was: "Can you tell this Honorable Court about the general
reputation of the proseuction witness in your community for aggressiveness and violent tendencies?

Would you, as the trial prosecutor, interpose your objection to the questions of the defense counsel? Explain your answer.

Yes. I, as the trial prosecutor, would interpose my objection to defense counsel's question on the ground of improper
impeachment.

Under the Law on Evidence, an adverse party's witness may be properly impeached by reputation evidence provided that it
is to the effect that the witness' general reputation for honesty, truth or integrity was bad. The reputation must only be on
character for truthfulness or untruthfulness.

Here, the evidence is not on the prosecution witness' general reputation for honesty, truth or integrity but on his aggressive
and violent tendencies. The evidence had nothing to do with the witness' character for truthfulness or untruthfulness.

Hence, the impeachment was improper.

X.

Pedro, the principal witness in a criminal case, testified and completed his testimony on direct examination in 2015. Due
to several postponements by the accused, grounded on his recurring illness, which were all granted by the judge, the cross-
examination of Pedro was finally set on October 15, 2016. Before the said date, Pedro died. The accused moved to expunge
Pedro's testimony on the ground that it violates his right of confrontation and the right to cross-examine the witness. The
prosecution opposed the motion and asked that Pedro's testimony on direct examination be admitted as evidence. Is the
Motion meritorious? Explain.

No. The motion to expunge Pedro's testimony on the ground that it violates the accused's right to confront the witness is
not meritorious.

The Supreme Court has held that where the delay in cross-examining the witness was imputable to the accused, he could
not be heard to complain if the witness becomes unavailable through no fault of the party presenting the witness and
hence, the witness' direct examination should not be stricken out.

Here, the delay in cross-examining Pedro was imputable to the motions for postponement filed by the accused and the
death of Pedro was not the fault of the prosecution.

REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW BY: AMiR

QUIZ

I.

Alex was charged with theft of an article worth P100k. Upon being arraigned, he pleaded not guilty to the offense charged.
Thereafter, before trial commenced, he asked the court to allow him to change his plea of not guilty to a plea of guilty but
only to Estafa involving P40k, which the court denied. Did the trial court act properly?

No, because a plea of guilty to a lesser offense may be allowed if the lesser offense is necessarily included in the offense
charged. Estafa involving P 40,000.00 is not necessarily included in theft of an article worth P 100,000.00

II.

Charged with the crime of murder of Andrew before the RTC of Bulacan, the accused, Jason, assisted by counsel, pleaded
guilty to the charge. Thereupon, the court rendered a judgment convicting Jason for the crime of murder and sentencing
him to suffer reclusion perpetua and to pay civil indemnity to the heirs of Andrew. Was the court correct in rendering a
judgment without conducting a searching inquiry into the voluntariness and full comprehension of the consequences of the
accused's plea and to require the prosecution to prove Jason's guilt and the precise degree of culpability?

The trial court acted properly.

The duty of the court to conduct a searching inquiry into the voluntariness and full comprehension of the consequences of
the accused’s plea and to require the prosecution to prove his guilt and the precise degree of culpability applies only to a
capital offense. Since the death penalty has been abolished, there is no longer any capital offense.

III.

The accused, Reynaldo, filed a motion to quash the information against him on the following grounds that the court had no
jurisdiction over his person, that the court had no jurisdiction over the offense charged, and that the officer who filed the
information had no authority to do so. Sought by the court for comment, on the issue that the court had no jurisdiction
over Reynaldo's person, the public prosecutor argued that Reynaldo had waived said objection to lack of personal
jurisdiction. Is the public prosecutor's argument correct?

Yes. The rule is that if the accused objects to the jurisdiction of the court over his person, he may move to quash the
information, but only on that ground. If, as in this case, the accused raises other grounds in the motion to quash, he is
deemed to waived that objection and to have submitted his person to the jurisdiction of that court.

IV.

When shall a plea of not guilty be entered for the accused?

(1) When the accused refuses to plea or makes a conditional plea.

(2) When the accused pleads guilty but presents exculpatory evidence, his plea shall be deemed withdrawn and a plea
of not guilty shall be entered for him.

V.

During the pre-trial conference, the accused, Bembol, submitted to the court a document indicating therein his personal
offer to settle the case for P1M to the private prosecutor, who immediately put the offer on record in the presence of the
trial judge. Is Bembol's offer a judicial admission of his guilt?

No. The Rules of Court provides that all agreements or admissions made or entered during the pre-trial conference shall be
reduced in writing and signed by the accused and counsel; otherwise, they cannot be used against the accused.

Here, Bembol's offer was merely oral.

Hence, the same cannot be used against him.

REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW BY: AMiR

VI.

Dan was charged with slight physical injuries in MTC. He pleaded not guilty and went to trial. After the prosecution had
presented its evidence, the trial court set the continuation of the hearing on another date. On the date scheduled for
hearing, the prosecutor failed to appear, whereupon the court, on motion of Dan, dismissed the case. A few minutes later,
the prosecutor arrived and opposed the dismissal of the case. The court reconsidered its order and directed Dan to present
his evidence. Before the next date of trial came, however, Dan moved that the last order be set aside on the ground that
the reinstatement of the case had placed him twice in double jeopardy. Acceding to the motion, the court again dismissed
the case. The prosecutor then filed an information in the RTC, charging Dan with direct assault based on the same facts
alleged in the information for slight physical injuries but with the added allegation that Dan inflicted the injuries out of
resentment for what the complainant had done in the performance of his duties as chairman of the board or election
inspectors. Dan moved to quash the information for direct assault on the ground that its filing had placed him in double
jeopardy. Is Dan's motion tenable?

Dan's motion to quash the information for direct assault on the ground of double jeopardy because the first offense
charged is necessarily included in the second offense charged.

VII

What are the grounds to move to quash the complaint or information?

The grounds of a motion to quash are the following: (JEJEMON FD)

a. The facts charged do not constitute an offense.

b. The court trying the case has no jurisdiction over the offense charged.
c. The court trying the case has no jurisdiction over the person of the accused.
d. The officer who filed the information had no authority to do so.
e. The complaint or information does not conform substantially to the prescribed form.
f. More than one offense is charged except when a single punishment for various offenses is prescribed by law.
g. The criminal action or liability has been extinguished.
h. The complaint or information contains averments which, if true, would constitute a legal excuse or justification.
i. The accused has previously been convicted or acquitted of the offense charged, or the case against him was
terminated without his express consent. (double jeopardy)

VIII

Mayor TM was charged of malversation through falsification of official documents. Assisted by Atty. OP as counsel de parte
during pre-trial he signed together with Ombudsman Prosecutor TG a “Joint Stipulation of Facts and Documents” which
was presented to the Sandiganbayan. Before the court issue a pre-trial order but after some delay caused by Atty. OP, he
was substituted by Atty. QR as a defense counsel. Atty QR fortwith filed a motion to withdraw the “Joint Stipulation”
alleging that it is prejudicial to the accused because it contains, inter alia, the statement that the “Defense admitted all the
documentary evidence of the Prosecution”, thus leaving the accused a little or no room to defend himself, and violating his
right against self incrimination. Resolve the Atty. QR’s motion.

The court should deny QR’s motion. If in the pre-trial agreement signed by the accused and his counsel, the accused admits
the documentary evidence of the prosecution, it does not violate his right against self-incrimination. His lawyer cannot file
a motion to withdraw. A pre-trial order is not needed. The admission of such documentary evidence is allowed by the rule.

REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW BY: AMiR

QUIZ NO. 3

I.

Renato filed a criminal action against Alex for the latter's bouncing check. On the date of the hearing after his arraignment,
Renato manifested to the Court that he is reserving his right to file a separate civil action. The court allowed Renato to file
civil action separately and proceeded to hear the criminal case. Alex filed a motion for reconsideration contending that the
civil action is deemed included in the criminal case. The court granted the Motion. Is the court correct in granting the
motion for reconsideration?

The court is correct in granting the motion for reconsideration.

The Rules provides that the criminal action for violation of BP Blg 22 shall be deemed to include the corresponding civil
action. No reservation to file such civil action separately shall be allowed.

Here, Renato filed the criminal action for violation of BP Blg 22 which includes the corresponding civil action, which
means, he is not allowed to reserve to file a separate civil action. Thus, the motion for reconsideration filed by Alex
contending that the civil action is deemed included in the criminal case is tenable.

Hence, the Court is correct in granting the motion for reconsideration.

II.

A criminal information is filed before the RTC Manila charging Mara Rassay with cyber libel punishable under the
Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012, specifically Section 4(c)(4). Mara Rassay files a motion to quash the information on the
ground that no preliminary investigation was conducted and the penalty for cyber libel is imprisonment for a minimum
period of four years and one day to a maximum of eight years. Will the motion be granted?

The motion should be denied.

The Rules of Court provides that absence of a preliminary investigation is not one of the grounds of a motion to quash the
information.

Here, Mara Rassay's motion to quash the information on the ground that no preliminary investigation is not tenable.

Hence, the Motion should be denied.

III.

AX swindled JM in the amount of P10k sometime in June 2003. On the strength of the sworn statement given by JM
personally to SPO1 Juan Ramos sometime in June 2004, and without securing a warrant, SPO1 Ramos arrested AX.
Forthwith the police officer filed with the City Prosecutor of Manila a complaint for Estafa supported by JM's sworn
statement and other documentary evidence. After due inquest, the prosecutor filed the requisite information with the RTC
of Pasig. Is the arrest of AX valid?

The arrest of AX was invalid.

The Rules of Court provides that a peace officer or a private person may, wihtout a warrant, arrest a person:

1. When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed,

is actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense;
2. When an offense has just been committed and
he has probable cause to believe based on personal knowledge of facts or circumstances
that the person to be arrested has committed it; and
3. When the person to be arrested is an escaped prisoner.

IV.
Danny was charged with murder. He applied for bail, after his arraignment wherein he pleaded not guilty. Moreover, the
public prosecutor interposed no objection to Danny's bail application. May Danny be admitted to bail?

Danny may be admitted to bail.

The Rules of Court provides that a bail is a matter of judicial discretion before conviction by the RTC of an offense
punishable by death, reclusion perpetua, or life imprisonment.

Here, the crime charged was murder which is punishable by death, reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment and there has
been no conviction by the RTC yet. Thus, the bail is discretionary.

Hence, Danny may be admitted to bail.

REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW BY: AMiR

V.

Cristy, accused of falsification of a public document, testified in her own behalf. On direct examination, she vehemently
denied the allegation that she falsified the subject public document. On cross-examination, she was asked to take dictation
in his own writing for the purpose of comparison. She refused invoking her right against self-incrimination. May she be
compelled to take the dictation?

Yes, she may be compelled to take the dictation.

The Supreme Court has held that an accused who takes the witness stand waives the privilege against self-incrimination.

Here, Cristy took the witness stand and vehemently denied the allegation that she falsified the subject public document.
Thus, she has waived the privilege against self-incrimination.

Hence, she may be compelled to take the dictation.


REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW BY: AMiR

QUIZ

I.

A. In a BP Blg 22 case, the accused, John, without leave of court filed a demurrer to evidence. The demurrer was granted
by the court but it held John Civilly liable for damages to the private complainant. John argued that he should have
been allowed to present his evidence on the civil aspect of the case. Is John correct?

No. When the petitioner filed a demurrer to evidence without leave of court, the whole case was submitted for
judgment on the basis of the evidence presented by the prosecution as the accused is deemed to have waived the right
to present evidence. At that juncture, the court is called upon to decide the case including its civil aspect.

B. After the prosecution had rested and made its formal offer of evidence, with the court admitting all of the
prosecution's evidence, the accused filed a demurrer to evidence with leave of court. The prosecution was allowed to
comment thereon. Thereafter, the court granted the demurrer, finding that the accused could not have committed the
offense charged. The prosecution filed an MR on the ground that the court order granting the demurrer was not in
accord with the law and jurisprudence. Resolve the motion.

No, the motion will not prosper. The Supreme Court has held that the grant of a demurrer to evidence is equivalent to
an acquittal upon the merits and is immediately final. Hence, the prosecution cannot move for the reconsideration for
that would place the accused in double jeopardy.

II.

A. When does a judgment become final?

A judgment of conviction becomes final : (PAWS)

1. After the lapse of the period to appeal ;
2. Partial or total service of sentence;
3. Waiver in writing of the right to appeal;
4. Accused has applied for probation.

B. Claire issued 3 postdated checks to Sps Reyes to accommodate their investment in Multitel Corporation. The checks
bounced for insufficiency of funds. Claire was prosecuted for the violation of BP Blg 22 and for estafa under Art 315(2)
(3) of the RPC. Claire was acquitted in the BP Blg 22 cases on the ground of reasonable doubt, with a declaration that
the act or omission from which liability may arise does not exist. Later, Claire was acquitted also in the estafa case but
with the pronouncement that she was civilly liable for the value of the postdated checks. On appeal, Claire contended
that her acquittal and exoneration from the civil liability in the BP Blg 22 cases should have barred the private
complainants from claiming civil liability from her in the estafa case. Is Claire's contention correct?

No. Claire’s acquittal and subsequent exoneration in the BP 22 cases had no effect in the estafa case, even if both cases
were founded on the same factual circumstances. While a BP 22 case and an estafa casd may be rooted from a indential set
of facts, they nevertheless present different causes of action, which, under the law, are considered “separate, distinct and
independent” from each other. Therefore, both cases can proceed to their final adjudication- both as to their criminal and
civil aspects – subject to the prohibition on double recovery. Perforce, a ruling in BP 22 case concerning the criminal and
civil liabilities of the accused cannot be given any bearing whatsoever in the criminal and civil aspects of a related estafa
case.

III.

A. What are the grounds for New Trial?

The court shall grant a new trial on any of the following grounds :

1. PREJUDICIAL ERRORS OR IRREGULARITIES. Errors of law or irregularities prejudicial to the substantial rights of
the accused have been committed during the trial.
2. NEWLY DISCOVERED EVIDENCE. New and material evidence has been discovered which the accused could not
with reasonable diligence have discovered and produced at the trial and which if introduced and admitted would
probably change the judgment.

B. What are the grounds for reconsideration?

The court shall grant reconsideration on the ground of errors of law or fact in the judgment, which do not require further
proceedings.
REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW BY: AMiR

IV.

Dan was charged and convicted by the MeTC of Las Pinas City with the crime of falsification of private documents. The
judgment of conviction was promulgated on May 1, 2008 in the presence of Dan and his counsel.

A. Up to when may Dan appeal, to what court shall he take his appeal, and how shall he take his appeal?

Under the Rules of Criminal Procedure, Dan may appeal to the RTC within 15 days from promulgation of judgment or up
to the May 16, 2018 by filing a notice of appeal with the MeTC and serving a copy thereof upon the adverse party.

B. Assume that on May 14, 2008, Dan filed an MR and the same was denied on June 14, 2008, a copy of which Dan
received on June 18, 2008. Up to when may Dan appeal?

Dan may appeal up to July 3, 2008.

The Supreme Court has held that the fresh 15-day period provided for applies to appeals in criminal cases, notwithstanding
the wordings of S6 R 122. The Supreme Court said it would be absurd for an appellant in a civil case to have a better right
of appeal than the accused in criminal case.

C. Would your answer be the same if the crime of which Drew was convicted was slight physical injuries?

No. My answer would not be the same. Drew can no longer appeal.
Under the Rules on Summary Procedure, a motion for reconsideration of a judgment is a prohibited pleading. Cases for
violation of BP Blg 22 are covered by the Rules on Summary Procedure.

Here, the motion for reconsideration is a prohibited pleading and did not suspend the running of the reglementary period
to appeal. Hence the judgment became final and executory.

V.

Jed was charged and convicted by the MeTC or Makati City with the crime of falsification of private documents. Jed was
able to timely appeal to the RTC. The RTC rendered judgment denying the appeal of Jed. Jed received a copy of the
judgment on December 1, 2009. Jed plans to appeal the RTC Decision on pure question of law.

A. Up to when may Jed appeal the RTC's decision, to what court shall he take his appeal, and how shall he take his
appeal?

Under the Rules of Criminal Procedure, Jed may appeal the RTC’s decision to the Court of Appeals within 15 days from
notice of judgment or until December 16, 2009 by filing a petition for review under Rule 42 and serving a copy thereof
upon the adverse party. Rule 42 applies since the RTCs decision was rendered in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction.

The Supreme Court has held that even if the appeal from a RTC decision is on pure questions of law, the appeal must be
taken to the Court of Appeals and not to the Supreme Court pursuant to the Rules of Criminal Procedure.

B. Assume that on December 14, 2009, Jed filed an MR and the same was denied by the RTC. Jed received a copy of the
order of denial on March 1, 2010. Up to when may Jed appeal?

Jed may appeal up to March 16, 2009.

Under the Rules of Criminal Procedure, the appeal to the Court of Appeals in cases decided by the RTC in the exercise of
its appellate jurisdiction shall be by petition for review under Rule 42. Under Rule 42, the petition may be filed within 15
days from notice of the decision or of the denial of the motion for reconsideration. 

REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW BY: AMiR

QUIZ APRIL 5, 2019

1.

In a disbarment case, introduced in evidence against the respondent was a birth certificate showing that he had fathered
children by his mistress. The respondent invokes Article 7 of PD No. 603 which provides that the birth records of a person
shall be kept strictly confidential and that no information thereto shall be disclosed except on request of the person himself
or of a court or proper government official and which punishes with imprisonment and/or fine any unauthorised
disclosure. Is the birth certificate admissible in evidence?

Yes. Article 7 of PD No. 603 only provides for sanctions against persons violating the rule on confidentiality of birth
records, but nowhere does it state that procurement of birth records in violation of said article would render said records
inadmissible in evidence.

On the other hand, the Revised Rules of Evidence only provides for the exclusion of evidence if it is obtained as a result of
illegal searches and seizures.

It should be emphasized, however, that said rule against unreasonable searches and seizures is meant only to protect a
person from interference by the government or the state.

Consequently, in this case where complainants, as private individuals, obtained the subject birth records as evidence
against respondent, the protection against unreasonable searches and seizures does not apply.

Since both Article 7 of PD No. 603 and the Revised Rules on Evidence do not provide for the exclusion from evidence of
the birth certificates in question, said public documents are, therefore, admissible and should be properly taken into
consideration in the resolution of this administrative case against respondent.

2.

At the trial of Ace for Violation of RA 9165, the prosecution offers in evidence a photocopy of the marked P100 bills used
in the "buy-bust" operation. Ace objects to the introduction of the photocopy on the ground that the Best Evidence Rule
prohibits the introduction of secondary evidence in lieu of the original.

Is the photocopy real evidence or documentary evidence?

The photocopy is real evidence because the same is being offered not to prove the contents of the marked money but to
prove its existence and use in the buy-bust operation.

Is the photocopy admissible in evidence?

The photocopy is admissible in evidence.

The objection that the introduction thereof would violate the Best Evidence Rule does not lie since the best evidence rule
does not apply to object or real evidence.

3.

What are the exceptions to the best evidence rule?

The exceptions to the best evidence rule are the following:

A. Custody or Control;
B. The original has been lost or destroyed, or cannot be produced in court without bad faith on the part of the offeror;
C. Accounts which are numerous and cannot be examined without great loss of time and the fact sought to be established
is only the general result of the whole;
D. Original is a public record in the custody of a public officer or is recorded in a public office.

4.

X asked a telephone operator to place a call to his lawyer Y. The telephone operator recognized the voice as that of X, a
person she knew. She placed the call to Y but contrary to company regulations, eavesdropped on the telephone
conversation. She overheard X tell the lawyer that he had just shot to death his wife and asked him for advice.

A. In the prosecution of X for murder, may the operator testify on what she had overheard over objection that the
conversation is a privileged attorney-client communication?

Yes. The attorney-client privilege bars only the attorney or his secretary, stenographer, or clerk from being examined but
the privilege does not extend to third persons who obtain knowledge of the communication between lawyer and client.

The privilege is a derogation from the general testimonial duty and should be strictly construed.
REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW BY: AMiR

That the operator was eavesdropping is of no consequence.

The privilege does not bar production by the adverse party of a letter between the client and his attorney which letter came
into the adverse party's possession.

B. What is the reason for the attorney work-product rule?

The rule that the trial preparation materials of a lawyer or his representative are privileged from discovery unless the other
party shows that it has a substantial need for the materials to prepare its case, and cannot, without undue hardship, obtain
their substantial equivalent by other means.

Trial preparation materials include written documents, such as records, notes, memorandums and tangible things.

If discovery will be allowed, the court must protect against disclosure of the mental impressions, conclusions, opinions and
legal theories of the lawyer or his representatives.

5.

Prosecution of H for the murder of P, the paramour of H's wife W. The prosecution calls W to the witness stand and offers
her testimony in order to prove the circumstances surrounding P's killing. After preliminary questions, the prosecution asks
W if he saw H leave the crime scene minutes after the killing of P. The defense objects on the ground of the marital
disqualification rule.

A. If you were the judge, how would you rule on the objection? Explain.

If I were the Judge, I would overrule the objection.

Under the Rules of Evidence, objection to evidence offered orally must be made immediately after the offer is made.

Here, the defense did not immediately object at the time W's testimony was offered in evidence although the ground for
the objection was already apparent at that point.

Hence, the defense waived the ground for the objection.

Subsequently, the prosecution asks W whether days before the killing while resting in their bedroom, H had told her that he
hates P because of W's feelings for P. The defense objects on the ground of the marital communication privilege.

B. If you were the judge, how would you rule on the objection? Explain.

If I were the judge, I would sustain the objection.

Under the Rules of Evidence, objection to a question propounded in the course of the witness's oral examination shall be
made as soon as the grounds therefor shall become reasonably apparent.

Here, the ground for the objection, that the communication was made in confidence during the marriage, became
reasonably apparent only at the time the question was propounded.

Hence, the objection was timely made.

6.

Who are disqualified to be a witness?

The following persons cannot be witnesses:

1. Those who are mentally incapacitated and immature children;

2. Spouses under the Marital Disqualification Rule;
3. Claimants against the estate of a deceased person or against an insane person; and
4. Those who are disqualified by reason of privileged communication.

REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW BY: AMiR

MIDTERM

1.

While in his Toyota Wigo and hurrying home to Marawi City from his work in Cagayan de Oro City, Noah figured in a
vehicular mishap along that portion of C3 within the City of Iligan. He was bumped from behind by a Ford Expedition SUV
driven by Jabbar who was observed using his cellular phone at the time of the collision. Both vehicles, more than 5 years
old, no longer carried insurance other than the compulsory third party liability insurance. Noah suffered physical injuries
while his Toyota Wigo sustained damage in excess of P500,000.00.

A. As counsel of Noah, describe the process you need to undertake starting from the point of the incident if Noah would
proceed criminally against Jabbar, and identify the court with jurisdiction over the case.

As counsel of Noah:

First, I will make him medically examined in order to ascertain the gravity and extent of the injuries he sustained from the
accident;

Second, I will secure a police report relative to the mishap;

Third, I will ask him to execute his Sinumpaang Salaysay; and

Then, I will use his Sinumpaang Salaysay or prepare a complaint affidavit and file the same in the Office of the City
Prosecutor of Iligan and later to the appropriate MTC of Iligan City for the crime of Reckless Imprudence Resulting to
Physical Injuries and Damage to Property.

B. If Noah choose to file an independent civil action for damages, explain briefly this type of action; its legal basis; and the
different approaches in pursuing this type of action.

An independent civil action is an action which is entirely distinct and separate from the criminal action. Such civil action
shall proceed independently of the criminal prosecution and shall require only a preponderance of evidence. Section 3 of
Rule 111 allows the filing of an independent civil action by the offended party based on Article 33 and 2176 of the New
Civil Code.

The different approaches that the plaintiff can pursue in this type of action are, as follows:

1. File the independent civil action and prosecute the criminal case separately;
2. File the independent civil action without filing the criminal case.
3. File the criminal case without need of reserving the independent civil action.

2.

Sharon, a young and lonely OFW, had an intimate relationship abroad with a friend, Richard. Although Sharon comes
home to Manila every six months, her foreign posting still left her husband Franc lonely so that he also engaged in his own
extramarital activities. In one particularly exhilarating session with his girlfriend, Franc died. Within 180 days from Franc's
death, Sharon gives birth in Manila to a baby boy. Irate relatives of Franc contemplate charging Sharon for Adultery and
they hire your law firm to handle the case. Is the contemplated criminal action a viable option to bring?

The contemplated criminal action is not a viable option to bring.

The Rules of Court provides that Adultery shall not be prosecuted except upon a complaint filed by the offended spouse.

In this case, the relatives of Franc are not the aggrieved party nor the offended spouse. Thus, the Adultery case they are
contemplating to bring will not be prosecuted.

Hence, the contemplated criminal action is not a viable option to bring.

3.

A. What are the grounds for suspension of arraignment?

The following are the grounds for suspension of arraignment:

1. The accused appears to be suffering from an unsound mental condition;
2. There exists a prejudicial question; and
3. There is a pending Petition for Review of the resolution of the prosecutor before the Department of Justice or Office of
the President.
REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW BY: AMiR

B. What are the grounds for a new trial?

The following are the grounds for a New Trial:

1. Prejudicial errors or irregularities; and
2. Newly discovered evidence.

C. What are the grounds for reconsideration?

The only ground for reconsideration is:

1. Errors of law or fact in the judgment, which do not require further proceedings.

4.

Renato filed a criminal action against Alex for the latter's bouncing check. On the date of the hearing after his arraignment,
Renato manifested to the court that he is reserving his right to file a separate civil action. The Court allowed Renato to file
a civil action separately and proceeded to hear the criminal case. Alex filed a motion for reconsideration contending that
the civil action is deemed included in the criminal case. The Court granted the Motion. Is the court correct in granting the
motion for reconsideration?

The court is correct in granting the motion for reconsideration.

The Rules provides that the criminal action for violation of BP Blg 22 shall be deemed to include the corresponding civil
action. No reservation to file such civil action separately shall be allowed.

Here, Renato filed the criminal action for violation of BP Blg 22 which includes the corresponding civil action, which
means, he is not allowed to reserve to file a separate civil action. Thus, the motion for reconsideration filed by Alex
contending that the civil action is deemed included in the criminal case is tenable.

Hence, the Court is correct in granting the motion for reconsideration.

5.

Cristy, accused of falsification of a public document, testified in her own behalf. On direct examination, she vehemently
denied the allegation that she falsified the subject public document. On cross-examination, she was asked to take dictation
in his own writing for the purpose of comparison. She refused invoking her right against self-incrimination. May she be
compelled to take the dictation?

Yes, she may be compelled to take the dictation.

The Supreme Court has held that an accused who takes the witness stand waives the privilege against self-incrimination.

Here, Cristy took the witness stand and vehemently denied the allegation that she falsified the subject public document.
Thus, she has waived the privilege against self-incrimination.

Hence, she may be compelled to take the dictation.