2015

X.

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 that 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. (4%)

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

a) The Supreme Court has held in Soliven v. Makasiar, 167 SCRA 393 (1988) that Section 2 of Art. 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 by
the 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. (People v. Grey, 26 July 2010).

XII.

Paz was awakened by a commotion coming from a condo unit next to hers. Alarmed, she called up
the nearby police station. PO 1 Remus and P02 Romulus proceeded to the condo unit identified by
Paz. PO 1 Remus knocked at the door and when a man opened the door, POI Remus and his
companions introduced themselves as police officers. The man readily identified himself as Oasis
Jung and gestured to them to come in. Inside, the police officers saw a young lady with her nose
bleeding and face swollen. Asked by P02 Romulus what happened, the lady responded that she was
beaten up by Oasis Jung. The police officers arrested Oasis Jung and brought him and the young
lady back to the police station. PO 1 Remus took the young lady's statement who identified herself
as AA. She narrated that she is a sixteen-year-old high school student; that previous to the incident,
she had sexual intercourse with Oasis Jung at least five times on different occasions and she was
paid P5,000.00 each time and it was the first time that Oasis Jung physically hurt her. P02 Romulus
detained Oasis Jung at the station's jail. After the inquest proceeding, the public prosecutor filed an
information for Violation of R.A. No. 9262 (The VA WC Law) for physical violence and five
separate informations for violation ofR.A. No. 7610 (The Child Abuse Law). Oasis Jung's lawyer
filed a motion to be admitted to bail but the court issued an order that approval of his bail bond
shall be made only after his arraignment.

a.) Did the court properly impose that bail condition? (3%)
Before arraignment, Oasis Jung's lawyer moved to quash the other four separate informations for
violation of the child abuse law invoking the single larceny rule.

b.) Should the motion to quash be granted? (2%)

c.) After his release from detention on bail, can Oasis Jung still question the validity of his arrest?
(2%)

a) No, the court did not properly impose the condition that the approval of the bail bond shall be made
only after the arraignment.

In a case involving similar facts, the Supreme Court held that in cases where it is authorized, bail should
be granted before arraignment, otherwise the accused may be hindered from filing a motion to quash
since his arraignment would necessarily be deferred pending the resolution of the motion to quash. This
would amount to a substantial dilution of his right to file a motion to quash. (Lavides v. Court of
Appeals, 1 February 2000).

b) No, the motion to quash should not be granted.

In a case involving similar facts, the Supreme Court held that each act of sexual intercourse with a minor
is a separate and distinct offense under R.A. No. 7610.

Hence the single larceny or single offense rule is not applicable. (Id.).

c) Yes, Oasis Jung can still question the validity of his arrest after his release from detention on bail.

Under the Rules on Criminal Procedure, admission to bail shall not bar the accused from challenging the
validity of his arrest provided that he does so before entering his plea. (Sec. 26, Rule 114).

XIII.

Jaime was convicted for murder by the Regional Trial Court of Davao City in a decision
promulgated on September 30, 2015. On October 5, 2015, Jaime filed a Motion for New Trial on the
ground that errors of law and irregularities prejudicial to his rights were committed during his
trial. On October 7, 2015, the private prosecutor, with the conformity of the public prosecutor, filed
an Opposition to Jaime's motion. On October 9, 2015, the court granted Jaime's motion. On
October 12, 2015, the public prosecutor filed a motion for reconsideration. The court issued an
Order dated October 16, 2015 denying the public prosecutor's motion for reconsideration. The
public prosecutor received his copy of the order of denial on October 20, 2015 while the private
prosecutor received his copy on October 26, 2015.

a.) What is the remedy available to the prosecution from the court's order granting Jaime's motion
for new trial? (3%)

b.) In what court and within what period should a remedy be availed of? (1%)

c.) Who should pursue the remedy? (2%)

a) The remedy available to the prosecution from the court's order granting Jaime's motion for new trial is
a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65.
 Under Section 1(b) of Rule 41, no appeal may be taken from an interlocutory order and the
aggrieved party may file an appropriate special civil action as provided in Rule 65.

Here, the order granting the motion for new trial is an interlocutory order since it does not
completely dispose of the case but still leaves something to be done, that is, conducting the new trial.
Hence, the available remedy is the special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65.

b) The special civil action for certiorari should be filed with the Court of Appeals. It should be filed
within 60 days from receipt by the public prosecutor of the order denying the motion for reconsideration
pursuant to Section 4 of Rule 65. The 60-day period should be reckoned from the receipt by the public
prosecutor who has the direction and control of the prosecution pursuant to Section 5 of Rule 110.

c) The remedy should be pursued by the Office of the Solicitor General.

Under Section 35(1), Chapter 12, Title III of Book IV of the 1987 Administrative Code, the authority to
represent the government in criminal cases before the Court of Appeals and Supreme Court is vested
solely in the Office of the Solicitor General. (Cario v. De Castro, 30 April 2008).

XIV.

Pedro was charged with theft for stealing Juan's cellphone worth P10,000.00. Prosecutor Marilag at
the pre-trial submitted the judicial affidavit of Juan attaching the receipt for the purchase of the
cellphone to prove civil liability. She also submitted the judicial affidavit of Mario, an eyewitness
who narrated therein how Pedro stole Juan's cellphone. At the trial, Pedro's lawyer objected to the
prosecution's use of judicial affidavits of her witnesses considering the imposable penalty on the
offense with which his client was charged.

a.) Is Pedro's lawyer correct in objecting to the judicial affidavit of Mario? (2%)

b.) Is Pedro's lawyer correct in objecting to the judicial affidavit of Juan? (2%)

a) No, Pedro’s lawyer is not correct in objecting to the judicial affidavit of Mario.

The Judicial Affidavit Rule applies to criminal actions where the maximum of the imposable penalty does
not exceed six years.

The penalty for theft of property not exceeding P12,000 does not exceed 6 years. Hence, the Judicial
Affidavit Rule applies.

b) No, Pedro's lawyer is not correct in objecting to the judicial affidavit of Juan.

The Judicial Affidavit Rule applies with respect to the civil aspect of the criminal actions, whatever the
penalties involved are. In this case, the purpose of introducing the judicial affidavit of Juan was to prove
his civil liability.
 XVI.

AA, a twelve-year-old girl, while walking alone met BB, a teenage boy who befriended her. Later,
BB brought AA to a nearby shanty where he raped her. The Information for rape filed against BB
states: "On or about October 30, 2015, in the City of S.P. and within the jurisdiction of this
Honorable Court, the accused, a minor, fifteen (15) years old with lewd design and by means of
force, violence and intimidation, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously had sexual
intercourse with AA, a minor, twelve (12) years old against the latter's will and consent." At the
trial, the prosecutor called to the witness stand AA as his first witness and manifested that he be
allowed to ask leading questions in conducting his direct examination pursuant to the Rule on the
Examination of a Child Witness. BB's counsel objected on the ground that the prosecutor has not
conducted a competency examination on the witness, a requirement before the rule cited can be
applied in the case.

After the prosecution had rested its case, BB' s counsel filed with leave a demurrer to evidence,
seeking the dismissal of the case on the ground that the prosecutor failed to present any evidence on
BB' s minority as alleged in the Information.

c.) Should the court grant the demurrer? (3%)

c) No, the court may not grant the demurrer.

Under the Rules of Criminal Procedure, a demurrer to evidence may be granted on the ground of
insufficiency of evidence.

Even assuming that minority was not proved, BB may still be convicted of rape since minority is not an
element of rape.

XVII.

Hercules was walking near a police station when a police officer signaled for him to approach. As
soon as Hercules came near, the police officer frisked him but the latter found no contraband. The
police officer told Hercules to get inside the police station. Inside the police station, Hercules asked
the police officer, "Sir, may problema po ba?" Instead of replying, the police officer locked up
Hercules inside the police station jail.

b.) If Hercules filed with the Ombudsman a complaint for warrantless search, as counsel for the
police officer, what defense will you raise for the dismissal of the complaint? (3%)

b) I will raise the defense that the warrantless search was authorized as a “stop and frisk.”

“Stop and frisk” is the right of a police officer to stop a citizen on the street, interrogate him and pat him
for weapons and contraband whenever he observes unusual conduct which leads him to conclude that
criminal activity may be afoot. (Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1).
 2016

XVI.

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 murderer 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? (2.5%)

[b] What does "personal knowledge of the facts and circumstances that the person to be arrested
committed it" mean? (2.5%)

a) In People v. del Rosario, the Court held that there must be a large measure of immediacy between the
time the offense was committed and the time of the arrest. If there was an appreciable lapse of time
between the arrest and the commission of the crime, a warrant of arrest must be secured.

In other words, the clincher in the element of ''personal knowledge of facts or circumstances" is the
required element of immediacy within which these facts or circumstances should be gathered. This
required time element acts as a safeguard to ensure that the police officers have gathered the facts or
perceived the circumstances within a very limited time frame. This guarantees that the police officers
would have no time to base their probable cause finding on facts or circumstances obtained after an
exhaustive investigation (Pestilos v. Generoso, G.R. No. 182601, November 10, 2014).

b) Personal knowledge of the facts and circumstances that the person to be arrested committed it, does not
require actual presence at the scene while a crime was being committed; it is enough that evidence of the
recent commission of the crime is patent and the police officer has probable cause to believe based on
personal knowledge of facts or circumstances, that the person to be arrested has recently committed the
crime. These facts or circumstances pertain to actual facts or raw evidence, i.e., supported by
circumstances sufficiently strong in themselves to create the probable cause of guilt of the person to be
arrested (Pestilos v. Generoso, G.R. No. 182601, November 10, 2014).

XVII.

The information against Roger Alindogan for the crime of acts of lasciviousness under Article 336
of the Revised Penal Code avers:

"That on or about 10:30 o'clock in the evening of February 1, 2010 at Barangay Matalaba, Imus,
Cavite and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, with lewd
and unchaste design, through force and intimidation, did then and there, wilfully, unlawfully and
feloniously commit sexual abuse on his daughter, Rose Domingo, a minor of 11 years old, either by
raping her or committing acts of lasciviousness on her, against her will and consent to her damage
and prejudice.

ACTS CONTRARY TO LAW."

The accused can move to quash the information on the ground that more than one offense is charged
except when a single punishment for various offenses is prescribed by law, as provided by Sec. 3(f), Rule
117 of the Rules on Criminal Procedure.

The information states that he committed sexual abuse on his daughter, EITHER by raping her or
committing acts of lasciviousness on her. More than one offense is charged in the information and the law
does not provide a single punishment for rape and acts of lasciviousness. Therefore, the information may
be quashed on the said ground.