REMEDIAL Law

petitioner to have parental custody of their two

children.
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
b. Is a foreign divorce decree between a
foreign spouse and a Filipino spouse,
uncontested by both parties, sufficient by GENERAL MATTERS
itself to cancel the entry in the civil registry
pertaining to the spouses’ marriage? (2018 Q: Governor Pedro Mario of Tarlac was charged
Bar) with indirect bribery before the Sandiganbayan
for accepting a car in exchange of the award of a
A: No. A foreign divorce decree between a foreign series of contracts for medical supplies. The
spouse and a Filipino spouse, uncontested by both Sandiganbayan, after going over the
parties is insufficient by itself to cancel the entry in information, found the same to be valid and
the civil registry. Before a foreign divorce decree ordered the suspension of Mario. The latter
can be recognized by our courts, the party pleading contested the suspension claiming that under
it must prove the divorce as a fact and demonstrate the law (Sec. 13 of RA 3019) his suspension is
its conformity to the foreign law allowing it. not automatic upon filing the information and
(Republic v. Manalo, G.R. No. 221029, 24 April 2018) his suspension under Sec. 13 of RA 3019 is in
conflict with Sec. 5 of the Decentralization Act of
Q: Ms. N initiated a special proceeding for the 1967 (RA 5185). The Sandiganbayan overruled
correction of entries in the civil registry under Mario’s contention stating that Mario’s
Rule 108 of the Rules of Court before the suspension under the circumstances is
Regional Trial Court (RTC), impleading only the mandatory. Is the court’s ruling correct? Why?
Local Civil Registrar therein. In her petition, Ms. (2001 Bar)
N sought to change the entry in her birth
certificate with respect to the date of her A: Yes. Mario’s suspension is mandatory although
parents' marriage from "May 22, 1992" to "not not automatic (Sec. 13 of RA No 3019 in relation to
married." The Office of the Solicitor General Sec. 5 of or RA No. 5185). It is mandatory after the
opposed the petition, arguing that Ms. N's determination of the validity of the information in a
parents should have been impleaded in the pre-suspension hearing (Segovia v. Sandiganbayan,
proceeding. In response, Ms. N argued that this G.R. No. 124067, March 27, 1998). The purpose of
was not necessary since it was an entry in her suspension is to prevent the accused public officer
own birth certificate which she intended to from frustrating or hampering his prosecution by
change. Hence, it was a matter personal to her, intimidating or influencing witnesses or tampering
and as such, the participation of her parents in with evidence or from committing further acts if
the case could be dispensed with. malfeasance while in office.

Is Ms. N's position correct? Explain. (2019 Bar) Jurisdiction of criminal courts

A: No. Ms. N’s parents should be impleaded. The Q: Jose, Alberto and Romeo were charged with
Civil Registrar, as well as all other persons who have murder. Upon filing of the information, the RTC
or claim to have any interest that would be affected judge issued the warrants for their arrest.
thereby, shall be made respondents for the reason Learning of the issuance of the warrants, the
that they are indispensable parties. three accused jointly filed a motion for
reinvestigation and for the recall of the
In Republic v. Uy (G.R. No. 198010, August 10, 2010), warrants of arrest. On the date set for hearing of
the Supreme Court nullified the trial court’s order to their motion, none of the accused showed up in
correct respondent’s entry for the latter’s failure to court for fear of being arrested. The RTC judge
implead and notify not only the Local Civil Registrar, denied their motion because the RTC did not
but also her parents and siblings as the persons who acquire jurisdiction over the persons of the
have interest and are affected by the changes or movants. Did the RTC rule correctly? (2008 Bar)
corrections sought.
A: No, the court acquired jurisdiction over the
person of the accused when they filed the aforesaid
motion and invoked the court’s authority over the

68


 QuAMTO (1987-2019)
case, without raising the issue of jurisdiction over People, G.R. No. L-3580, March 22, 1950) despite the
their person. Their filing the motion is tantamount finality of the judgment.
to voluntary submission to the court’s jurisdiction
and contributes voluntary appearance. (Miranda v. When injunction may be issued to restrain
Tuliao, G.R. No. 158763, March 31, 2006) criminal prosecution

Q: In complex crimes, how is the jurisdiction of a Q: Will the injunction lie to restrain the
court determined? (2003 Bar) commencement of a criminal action? Explain.
(1999 Bar)
A: In a complex crime, jurisdiction over the whole
complex crime must be lodged with the trial court A: As a general rule, injunction will not lie to restrain
having jurisdiction to impose the maximum and a criminal prosecution except:
most serious penalty imposable on an offense
forming part of the complex crime. (Cuyos v. Garcia, 1. To afford adequate protection to the
G.R. No. L-46934 April 15, 1988) constitutional rights of the accused;
2. When necessary for the orderly
Q: Mariano was convicted by the RTC for raping administration of justice or to avoid
Victoria and meted the penalty of reclusion oppression or multiplicity of actions;
perpetua. While serving sentence at the National 3. When double jeopardy is clearly apparent;
Penitentiary, Mariano and Victoria were 4. Where the charges are manifestly false and
married. Mariano filed a motion in said court for motivated by the lust for vengeance; and
his release from the penitentiary on his claim 5. Where there is clearly no prima facie case
that under Republic Act No. 8353, his marriage against the accused and a motion to quash
to Victoria extinguished the criminal action on that ground has been denied. (Roberts v.
against him for rape, as well as the penalty Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 113930, March 5,
imposed on him. However, the court denied the 1996; Brocka v. Ponce Enrile, G.R. No. 69863-
motion on the ground that it had lost 65, December 10, 1990)
jurisdiction over the case after its decision had
become final and executory. PROSECUTION OF OFFENSES

a. Is the ruling of the court correct? Explain. Q: Distinguish a Complaint from Information.
(1999 Bar)
A: No. The court can never lose jurisdiction so long
as its decision has not yet been fully implemented A: In criminal procedure, a complaint is a sworn
and satisfied. Finality of a judgment cannot operate written statement charging a person with an
to divest a court of its jurisdiction. The court retains offense, subscribed by the offended party, any peace
an interest in seeing the proper execution and officer or other peace officer charged with the
implementation of its judgments, and to that extent, enforcement of the law violated (Sec. 3, Rule 110);
may issue such orders necessary and appropriate while an information is an accusation in writing
for these purposes. (Echegaray v. Secretary of charging a person with an offense subscribed by the
Justice, G.R. No. 13205, January 19, 1999) prosecutor and filed with the court. (Sec. 4, Rule 110)

b. What remedy/remedies should the counsel Q: While in his Nissan Patrol and hurrying home
of Mariano take to secure his proper and to Quezon City from his work in Makati, Gary
most expeditious release from the National figured in a vehicular mishap along that portion
Penitentiary? Explain. (2005 Bar) of EDSA within the City of Mandaluyong. He was
bumped from behind by a Ford Expedition SUV
A: To secure the proper and most expeditious driven by Horace who was observed using his
release of Mariano from the National Penitentiary, cellular phone at the time of the collision. Both
his counsel should file: (a) a petition for habeas vehicles – more than 5 years old – no longer
corpus for the illegal confinement of Mariano (Rule carried insurance other than the compulsory
102), or (b) a motion in court which convicted him, third-party liability insurance. Gary suffered
to nullify the execution of his sentence or the order physical injuries while his Nissan Patrol
of his commitment on the ground that a sustained damage in excess of Php500, 000.
supervening development had occurred (Melo v.

69
UST
UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS
BAR OPERATIONS
2021 ACADEMICSCOMMITTEE
 REMEDIAL Law
a. As counsel for Gary, describe the witnesses who saw Horace using his cellular phone
process you need to undertake starting at the time the incident happened.
from the point of the incident if Gary
would proceed criminally against I will also present proof of employment of Gary such
Horace, and identify the court with as his pay slip in order to prove that he was gainfully
jurisdiction over the case. employed at the time of the mishap, and as a result
of the injuries he suffered, he was not able to earn
A: As counsel for Gary, I will first make him his usual income thereof. I will also present the
medically examined in order to ascertain the gravity attending Doctor of Gary to corroborate and
and extent of the injuries he sustained from the authenticate the contents of the medical report and
accident. Second, I will secure a police report abstract thereof. The evidence required to hold
relative to the mishap. Third, I will ask him to defendant Horace liable is only preponderance of
execute his Sinumpaang Salaysay. Thereafter, I will evidence.
use his Sinumpaang Salaysay or prepare a complaint
affidavit and file the same in the Office of the City The types of defenses that may be raised against this
Prosecutor and later on to the appropriate MTC of action are fortuitous event, force majeure or acts of
Mandaluyong City for the crime of Reckless God. The defendant can also invoke contributory
Imprudence resulting to physical injuries and negligence as partial defense. Moreover, the
damage to property. (Sec. 1 and 15, Rule 110) defendant can raise the usual defenses that the: (a)
plaintiff will be entitled to double compensation or
b. If Gary chooses to file an independent recovery, and (b) defendant will be constrained to
civil action for damages, explain briefly litigate twice and therefore suffer the cost of
this type of action: its legal basis; the litigation twice.
different approaches in pursuing this
type of action; the evidence you would Q: On his way to the PNP Academy in Silang,
need; and types of defenses you could Cavite, on board a public transport bus as a
expect. (2013 Bar) passenger, Police Inspector Masigasig of the
Valenzuela Police witnessed an on-going armed
A: An independent civil action is an action which is robbery while the bus was traversing Makati.
entirely distinct and separate from the criminal His alertness and training enabled him to foil
action. Such civil action shall proceed independently the robbery and to subdue the malefactor. He
of the criminal prosecution and shall require only a disarmed the felon and while frisking him,
preponderance of evidence. Section 3 of Rule 111 discovered another handgun tucked in his waist.
allows the filing of an independent civil action by the He seized both handguns and the malefactor
offended party based on Article 33 and 2176 of the was later charged with the separate crimes of
New Civil Code. robbery and illegal possession of firearm.

The different approaches that the plaintiff can Where should Police Inspector Masigasig bring
pursue in this type of action are, as follows: the felon for criminal processing? To Silang,
Cavite where he is bound; to Makati where the
a. File the independent civil action and bus actually was when the felonies took place; or
prosecute the criminal case separately. back to Valenzuela where he is stationed? Which
b. File the independent civil action without court has jurisdiction over the criminal cases?
filing the criminal case. (2013 Bar)
c. File the criminal case without need of
reserving the independent civil action. A: Police Inspector Masigasig should bring the felon
to the nearest police station or jail in Makati City
Aside from the testimony of Gary, the pieces of where the bus actually was when the felonies took
evidence that would be required in an independent place.
civil action are the medical report and certificate
regarding the injuries sustained by Gary, hospital Moreover, where an offense is committed in a public
and medical bills including receipt of payments vehicle while in the course of its trip, the criminal
made, police report and proof of the extent of action shall be instituted and tried in the court of
damage sustained by his car, and the affidavit of any Municipality or territory where such vehicle
passed during its trip, including the place of its

70


 QuAMTO (1987-2019)
departure and arrival. (Sec. 15[b], Rule 110) the probate court has the power to determine
Consequently, the criminal case for robbery and questions as to who are the heirs of the decedent.
illegal possession of firearms can be filed in (Reyes [Link], et al., G.R. No. L-7516, May 12, 1955;
Regional Trial Court of Makati City or on any of the Jimenez v. Intermediate Appellate Court, G.R. No.
places of departure or arrival of the bus. 75773, April 17, 1990)

Q: Yvonne, a young and lonely OFW, had an Incidentally, the heirs can also submit the baby boy
intimate relationship abroad with a friend, for DNA testing under the Rules on DNA Evidence
Percy. Although Yvonne comes home to Manila (A.M. No. 6-11-5-SC) or even blood-test in order to
every six months, her foreign posting still left determine paternity and filiation.
her husband Dario lonely so that he also
engaged in his own extramarital activities. In Q: Your friend YY, an orphan, 16 years old, seeks
one particularly exhilarating session with his your legal advice. She tells you that ZZ, her uncle,
girlfriend, Dario died. Within 180 days from subjected her to acts of lasciviousness; that
Dario’s death, Yvonne gives birth in Manila to a when she told her grandparents, they told her to
baby boy. Irate relatives of Dario contemplate just keep quiet and not to file charges against ZZ,
criminally charging Yvonne for adultery and their son. Feeling very much aggrieved, she asks
they hire your law firm to handle the case. you how her uncle ZZ can be made to answer for
his crime.
a. Is the contemplated criminal action a viable
option to bring? a. What would your advice be? Explain.

A: No. Sec. 5, Rule 110 provides that the crimes of A: I would advise the minor, an orphan of 16 years
adultery and concubinage shall not be prosecuted of age, to file the complaint herself independently of
except upon complaint by the offended spouse. her grandparents, because she is not incompetent
Since the offended party is already dead, then the or incapable of doing so upon grounds other than
criminal action for adultery as contemplated by her minority. (Sec. 5, Rule 110)
offended party’s relatives is no longer viable.
b. Suppose the crime committed against YY by
b. Is a civil action to impugn the paternity of her uncle ZZ is rape, witnessed by your
the baby boy feasible, and if so, in what mutual friend XX. But this time, YY was
proceeding may such issue be determined? prevailed upon by her grandparents not to
(2013 Bar) file charges. XX asks you if she can initiate
the complaint against ZZ. Would your
A: Yes, under Article 171 of the Family Code, the answer be the same? Explain. (2000 Bar)
heirs of the husband may impugn the filiation of the
child in the following cases: A: Since rape is now classified as a Crime Against
Persons under the Anti-Rape Law of 1997 (RA
1. If the husband should die before the 8353), I would advise XX to initiate the complaint
expiration of the period fixed for bringing against ZZ.
his action;
2. If he should die after the filing of the Q: X was arrested, in flagrante, for robbing a
complaint, without having desisted bank. After an investigation, he was brought
therefrom; or before the office of the prosecutor for inquest,
3. If the child was born after the death of the but unfortunately no inquest prosecutor was
husband. available. May the bank directly file the
complaint with the proper court? If in the
Since Dario is already dead when the baby boy was affirmative, what document should be filed?
born, his heirs have the right to impugn the filiation (2012 Bar)
of the child.
A: Yes, the bank may directly file the complaint with
Consequently, the heirs may impugn the filiation the proper court. In the absence or unavailability of
either by a direct action to impugn such filiation or an inquest prosecutor, the complaint may be filed by
raise the same in a special proceeding for settlement the offended party or a peace officer directly with
of the estate of the decedent. In the said proceeding, the proper court on the basis of the affidavit of the

71
UST
UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS
BAR OPERATIONS
2021 ACADEMICSCOMMITTEE
 REMEDIAL Law
offended party or arresting officer or person. (Sec. 6, A: No. The information cannot be amended to
Rule 12) change the offense charged from homicide to
parricide. The marriage is not a supervening fact
Designation of offense arising from the act constituting the charge of
homicide. (Sec. 8, Rule 110)
Q: The prosecution filed an information against
Jose for slight physical injuries alleging the acts b. Suppose instead of moving for the
constituting the offense but without any more amendment of the information, the public
alleging that it was committed after Jose’s prosecutor presented in evidence the
unlawful enter in the complainant’s abode. Was marriage certificate without objection on
the information correctly prepared by the the part of the defense, could A be convicted
prosecution? Why? (2001 Bar) of parricide? (1997 Bar)

A: No. The aggravating circumstance of unlawful A: No. A can be convicted only of homicide not of
entry in the complainant’s abode has to be specified parricide which is a graver offense. The accused has
in the information; otherwise, it cannot be the constitutional rights of due process and to be
considered as aggravating. (Sec. 8, Rule 110) informed of the nature and the cause of the
accusation against him. (Sec. 1, 14[1] and [2] Art. III,
Amendment or substitution of complaint or 1987 Constitution)
information
PROSECUTION OF CIVIL ACTIONS
Q:
a. D and E were charged with homicide in one Q: While cruising on a highway, a taxicab driven
Information. Before they could be by Mans hit an electric post. As a result thereof,
arraigned, the prosecution moved to amend its passenger, Jovy, suffered serious injuries.
the information to exclude E therefrom. Can Mans was subsequently charged before the
the court grant the motion to amend? Why? Municipal Trial Court with reckless imprudence
(2001, 2002 Bar) resulting in serious physical injuries.
Thereafter, Jovy filed a civil action against
A: Yes, provided notice is given to the offended Lourdes, the owner of the taxicab, for breach of
party and the court states its reasons for granting contract, and Mans for quasi-delict. Lourdes and
the same. (Sec. 14, Rule 110) Mans filed a motion to dismiss the civil action on
the ground of litis pendentia, that is, the
b. On the facts above stated, suppose the pendency of the civil action impliedly instituted
prosecution, instead of filing a motion to in the criminal action for reckless imprudence
amend, moved to withdraw the information resulting in serious physical injuries. Resolve
altogether and its motion was granted. Can the motion with reasons. (2005 Bar)
the prosecution re-file the information
although this time for murder? Explain. A: The motion to dismiss should be denied. The
action for breach of contract against the taxicab
A: Yes, the prosecution can re-file the information owner cannot be barred by the criminal action
for murder in substitution of the information for against the taxicab driver, although the taxicab
homicide because no double jeopardy has a yet owner can be held subsidiarily liable in the criminal
attached. (Galvez v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 114046 case, if the driver is insolvent. On the other hand, the
October 24, 1994) civil action for quasi-delict against the driver is an
independent civil action under Article 33 of the Civil
Q: A was accused of homicide for the killing of B. Code and Sec. 3, Rule 111 of the Rules of Court,
During the trial, the public prosecutor received which can be filed separately and can proceed
a copy of the marriage certificate of A and B. independently of the criminal action and regardless
of the result of the latter. (Samson v. Daway, G.R. Nos.
a. Can the public prosecutor move for the 160054-55, July 21, 2004)
amendment of the information to charge A
with the crime of parricide? Q: Name at least two instances where the trial
court can hold the accused civilly liable even if
he is acquitted. (2002, 2010 Bar)

72


 QuAMTO (1987-2019)
A: The instances where the civil, liability is not deemed instituted. He insisted that the basis of
extinguished despite acquittal of the accused are: the separate civil action was the very same act
that gave rise to the criminal action. Rule on
1. Where the acquittal is based on reasonable Tomas' motion to dismiss, with brief reasons.
doubt; (2017 Bar)
2. Where the court expressly declares that the
liability of the accused is not criminal but A: Tomas’s motion to dismiss on the ground of litis
only civil in nature; and pendentia should be denied. In cases of physical
3. Where the civil liability is not derived from injuries, a civil action for damages, entirely separate
or based on the criminal act of which the and distinct from the criminal action, may be
accused is acquitted. (Sapiera v. Court of brought by the injured party. Such civil action shall
Appeals, G.R. No. 128927, September 14, proceed independently of the criminal action (Art.
1999) 33, Civil Code; Sec. 3, Rule 111) and hence may not be
dismissed on the ground of litis pendentia.
Q: In an action for violation of Batas Pambansa
Blg. 22, the court granted the accused’s Prejudicial question
demurrer to evidence which he filed without
leave of court. Although he was acquitted of the Q: A allegedly sold to B a parcel of land which A
crime charged, he, however, was required by the later also sold to X. B brought a civil action for
court to pay the private complainant the face nullification of the second sale and asked that
value of the check. The accused filed a Motion of the sale made by A in his favour be declared
Reconsideration regarding the order to pay the valid. A theorized that he never sold the
face value of the check on the following grounds: property to B and his purported signatures
appearing in the first deed of sale were
a. the demurrer to evidence applied only forgeries. Thereafter, an Information for estafa
to the criminal aspect of the case (2001 was filed against A based on the same double
Bar); and sale that was the subject of the civil action. A
filed a “Motion for suspension of Action” in the
A: The Motion for Reconsideration should be criminal case, contending that the resolution of
denied. The ground that the demurrer to evidence the issue in civil case would necessarily be
applied only to the criminal aspect of the case was determinative of his guilt or innocence. Is the
not correct because the criminal action for violation suspension of the criminal action in order?
of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 included the Explain. (1999, 2000 Bar)
corresponding civil action. (Sec. 1[b], Rule 111)
A: Yes. The suspension of the criminal action is in
b. at the very least, he was entitled to order because the defense of A in civil action, that he
adduce controverting evidence on the never sold the property to B and that his purported
civil liability. Resolve the Motion for signatures in the first deed of sale were forgeries, is
Reconsideration (2003 Bar) a prejudicial question the resolution of which is
determinative of his guilt or innocence. If the first
A: The accused was not entitled to adduce sale is null and void, there would be no double sale
controverting evidence on the civil liability, because and A would be innocent of the offense of estafa.
he filed his demurrer to evidence without leave of (Ras v. Rasul, G.R. Nos. L-50441-42 September 18,
court. (Sec. 23, Rule 119) 1980)

Q: Tomas was criminally charged with serious Q: Solomon and Faith got married in 2005. In
physical injuries allegedly committed against 2010, Solomon contracted a second marriage
Darvin. During the pendency of the criminal with Hope. When Faith found out about the
case, Darvin filed a separate civil action for second marriage of Solomon and Hope, she filed
damages based on the injuries he had sustained. a criminal case for bigamy before the Regional
Tomas filed a motion to dismiss the separate Trial Court (RTC) of Manila sometime in 2011.
civil action on the ground of litis pendentia, Meanwhile, Solomon filed a petition for
pointing out that when the criminal action was declaration of nullity of his first marriage with
filed against him, the civil action to recover the Faith in 2012, while the case for bigamy before
civil liability from the offense charged was also the RTC of Manila is ongoing. Subsequently,

73
UST
UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS
BAR OPERATIONS
2021 ACADEMICSCOMMITTEE
 REMEDIAL Law
Solomon filed a motion to suspend the brought him to the inquest prosecutor for the
proceedings in the bigamy case on the ground of conduct of an inquest. Thereafter, an
prejudicial question. He asserts that the Information for Homicide was filed by the
proceedings in the criminal case should be inquest prosecutor without the conduct of a
suspended because if his first marriage with preliminary investigation. The next day Mr. A
Faith will be declared null and void, it will have requested for the conduct of a preliminary
the effect of exculpating him from the crime of investigation.
bigamy. Decide. (2014 Bar)
(a) Is the inquest prosecutor's filing of the
A: The motion filed by Solomon should be Information without the conduct of
[Link] elements of prejudicial question are: (1) preliminary investigation proper?
the previous instituted civil action involves an issue
similar or intimately related to the issue determines A: Yes. The initial duty of the inquest officer is to
the subsequent criminal action; and (2) the determine whether the respondent was arrested
resolution of such issue determines whether or not pursuant to Section 5, Rule 113. If that was so, then
the criminal action may proceed. In order for a he can file the information immediately in the
prejudicial question to exist, the civil action must proper court. Since Mr. A was arrested in flagrante
precede the filing of the criminal action (Dreamwork delicto, the action of the inquest prosecutor in filing
Construction, Inc. v. Janiola, G.R. No. 184861, June 30, the Information without conducting a preliminary
2009). Since the criminal case for bigamy was filed investigation was correct. (Section 8, Rule on
ahead of the civil action for declaration of nullity of Inquest)
marriage, there is no prejudicial question. At any
rate, the outcome of the civil case for annulment has (b) Is Mr. A's request permissible? Explain.
no bearing upon the determination of the guilt or (2017, 2019 Bar)
innocence of the accused in the criminal case for
bigamy because the accused has already committed A: The request of Mr. R to conduct a preliminary
the crime of bigamy when he contracted the second investigation was correct and the same is supported
marriage without the first marriage having being by the Revised Guidelines on Continuous trial
declared null and void. because it was made within the five (5)-day
reglementary period from inquest and filing of the
NB: In the case of Pulido v. People, G.R. No. 220149, Information in Court. Mr. R’s request was made a
July 27, 2021, the Supreme Court ruled that the day after the Information for Homicide was filed in
parties are not required to obtain a judicial court by the inquest prosecutor. (A.M. No. 15-06-10-
declaration of absolute nullity of a void ab initio of a SC, otherwise known as the Revised Guidelines for
prior or subsequent marriage in order to raise it as Continuous trial in Criminal cases)
a defense in a Bigamy case. Art. 40 of the Family
Code did not, in any way, amend Art. 349 of the Q: Regional Director AG of the Department of
Revised Penal Code on Bigamy. Thus, the accused in Public Works and Highways was charged with
the Bigamy case can collaterally attack the validity violation of Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019
of a prior marriage in the same proceedings for in the Office of the Ombudsman. An
Bigamy. The foregoing will not apply if the 1st or 2nd administrative charge for gross misconduct
marriage is merely voidable, since a voidable arising from the transaction subject matter of
marriage is valid until annulled. said criminal case was filed against him in the
same office. The Ombudsman assigned a team
PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION composed of investigators from the office of the
Special Prosecutor and from the Office of the
Q: In a neighborhood bicycle race, Mr. A bumped Deputy Ombudsman for the Military to conduct
the bicycle of one of his competitors, Mr. B, in a joint investigation of the criminal case and the
order to get ahead. This caused the latter to lose administrative case. The team of investigators
control of the bike which hit the concrete recommended to the Ombudsman that AG be
pavement and sent Mr. B crashing headfirst into preventively suspended for a period not
the sidewalk. By the time the organizers got to exceeding six months on its finding that the
him, Mr. B was dead. Law enforcement evidence of guilt is strong. The Ombudsman
authorities who witnessed the incident arrested issued the said order as recommended by the
Mr. A without a warrant, and immediately investigators. AG moved to reconsider the order

74


 QuAMTO (1987-2019)
on the following grounds: a) The office of the office, which he might currently be holding and not
Special Prosecutor had exclusive authority to necessarily the particular office under which he was
conduct a preliminary investigation of the charged. Thus, the DENR undersecretary can be
criminal case; b) The order for his preventive preventively suspended even though he was a
suspension was premature because he has yet to mayor, when he allegedly committed malversation.
file his answer to the administrative complaint
and submit countervailing evidence; and c) he Settled is the rule that where the accused files a
was career executive service officer and under motion to quash the information or challenges the
Presidential Decree No. 807 (Civil Service Law), validity thereof, a show-cause order of the trial
his preventive suspension shall be for a court would no longer be necessary. What is
maximum period of three months. Resolve with indispensable is that the trial court duly hear the
reasons the motion of respondent AG. (2005 parties at a hearing held for determining the validity
Bar) of the information, and thereafter hand down its
ruling, issuing the corresponding order of
A: The motion should be denied for the following suspension should it uphold the validity of the
reasons: information (Luciano v. Mariano, G.R. No. L-32950,
July 30, 1971). Since a pre-suspension hearing is
1. The office of the Special Prosecutor does basically a due process requirement, when an
not have exclusive authority to conduct a accused public official is given an adequate
preliminary investigation of the criminal opportunity to be heard on his possible defenses
case but it participated in the investigation against the mandatory suspension under R.A. No.
together with the Deputy Ombudsman for 3019, then an accused would have no reason to
the Military who can handle cases of complain that no actual hearing was conducted.
civilians and is not limited to the military. (Miguel v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 172035, July 04,
2. The order of preventive suspension need 2012)
not wait for the answer to the
administrative complaint and the In the facts given, the DENR Undersecretary was
submission of countervailing evidence. already given opportunity to question the validity of
(Garcia v. Mojica, G.R. No. 13903, September the Information for malversation by filing a motion
10, 1999) to quash, and yet, the Sandiganbayan sustained its
validity. There is no necessity for the court to
Q: X, an undersecretary of DENR, was charged conduct pre-suspension hearing to determine for
before the Sandiganbayan for malversation of the second time the validity of the information for
public funds allegedly committed when he was purpose of preventively suspending the accused.
still the Mayor of a town in Rizal. After
arraignment, the prosecution moved that X be Q: You are the defense counsel of Angela Bituin
preventively suspended. X opposed the motion who has been charged under RA 3019 (Anti-
arguing that he was now occupying a position Graft and Corrupt Practices Act) before the
different from that which the Information Sandiganbayan. While Angela has posted bail,
charged him and therefore, there is no more she has yet to be arraigned. Angela revealed to
possibility that he can intimidate witnesses and you that she has not been investigated for any
hamper the prosecution. Decide. Suppose X files offense and that it was only when police officers
a Motion to Quash challenging the validity of the showed up at her residence with a warrant of
Information and the Sandiganbayan denies the arrest that she learned of the pending case
same, will there still be a need to conduct a pre- against her. She wonders why she has been
suspension hearing? Explain. (2012 Bar) charged before the Sandiganbayan when she is
not in government service.
A: There is no necessity for the court to conduct pre-
suspension hearing. Under Section 13 of RA No. a. What "before-trial" remedy would you
3019, an incumbent public officer against whom any invoke in Angela’s behalf to address the fact
criminal prosecution under a valid information for that she had not been investigated at all, and
graft-related crime such as malversation is pending how would you avail of this remedy?
in court, shall be suspended from office. The word
“office”, from which the public officer charged shall A: I will file a motion for the conduct of preliminary
be preventively suspended, could apply to any investigation or reinvestigation and the quashal or

75
UST
UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS
BAR OPERATIONS
2021 ACADEMICSCOMMITTEE
 REMEDIAL Law
recall of the warrant of arrest in the Court where the A: Yes. Since the offender was arrested in flagrante
case is pending with an additional prayer to delicto without a warrant of arrest; an inquest
suspend the arraignment. proceeding should be conducted and thereafter a
case may be filed in court even without the requisite
Under Section 6, Rule 112, after filing of the preliminary investigation.
complaint or information in court without a
preliminary investigation, the accused may within Under Section 7, Rule 112, when a person is lawfully
five days from the time he learns of its filing ask for arrested without a warrant involving an offense
a preliminary investigation with the same right to which requires preliminary investigation, the
adduce evidence in his defense. complaint or information may be filed by a
prosecutor without the need of such investigation
Moreover, Section 26, Rule 114 provides that an provided an inquest has been conducted in
application for or admission to bail shall not bar the accordance with existing rules. In the absence or
accused from challenging the validity of his arrest or unavailability of an inquest prosecutor, the
the legality of the warrant issued therefor, or from complaint may be filed by the offended party or a
assailing the regularity or questioning the absence peace officer directly with the proper court on the
of a preliminary investigation of the charge against basis of the affidavit of the offended party or
him, provided that he raises them before entering arresting officer or person.
his plea. The court shall resolve the matter as early
as practicable as but not later than the start of the Q: Engr. Magna Nakaw, the District Engineer of
trial of the case. the DPWH in the Province of Walang Progreso,
and Mr. Pork Chop, a private contractor, were
b. What "during-trial" remedy can you use to both charged in the Office of the Ombudsman for
allow an early evaluation of the prosecution violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices
evidence without the need of presenting Act (R.A. No. 3019) under a conspiracy theory.
defense evidence; when and how can you While the charges were undergoing
avail of this remedy? (2013 Bar) investigation in the Office of the Ombudsman,
Engr. Magna Nakaw passed away. Mr. Pork Chop
A: I will file first a motion for leave to file a demurrer immediately filed a motion to terminate the
within five (5) days from the time the prosecution investigation and to dismiss the charges against
rested its case. If the same is granted, then I will now him, arguing that because he was charged in
file a demurrer to evidence within ten (10) days conspiracy with the deceased, there was no
(Sec. 23, Rule 119). This remedy would allow the longer a conspiracy to speak of and,
evaluation of the sufficiency of prosecution’s consequently, any legal ground to hold him for
evidence without the need of presenting defense trial had been extinguished. Rule on the motion
evidence. It may be done through the court’s to terminate filed by Mr. Pork Chop, with brief
initiative or upon motion of the accused and after reasons. (2017 Bar)
the prosecution rested its case. (Sec. 23, Rule 119)
A: Mr. Pork Chop’s motion to terminate the
Q: On his way to the PNP Academy in Silang, investigation before the Office of the Ombudsman
Cavite on board a public transport bus as a should be denied. In a case involving similar facts,
passenger, Police Inspector Masigasig of the the Supreme Court held that the death of a co-
Valenzuela Police witnessed an on-going armed conspirator, even if he was the lone public officer,
robbery while the bus was traversing Makati. did not mean that the allegation of conspiracy to
His alertness and training enabled him to foil violate the Anti-Graft Law could no longer be proved
the robbery and to subdue the malefactor. He or that the alleged conspiracy was already
disarmed the felon and while frisking him, expunged. The only thing extinguished by the death
discovered another handgun tucked in his waist. of a co-conspirator was his criminal liability. His
He seized both handguns and the malefactor death did not extinguish the crime nor did it remove
was later charged with the separate crimes of the basis of the charge of conspiracy between him
robbery and illegal possession of firearm. May and private respondent. (People v. Go, G.R. 168539,
the charges of robbery and illegal prosecution of March 25, 2014)
firearm be filed directly by the investigating
prosecutor with the appropriate court without a ARREST
preliminary inestigation? (2013 Bar)

76


 QuAMTO (1987-2019)
Q: Give at least two instances when a peace City Prosecutor of Manila a complaint for estafa
officer or a private person may make a valid supported by RY’s sworn statement and other
warrantless arrest. (2017 Bar) documentary evidence. After due inquest, the
prosecutor filed the requisite information with
A: Under Section 5, Rule 113, a peace officer or a the MM RTC. No preliminary investigation was
private person may make a valid warrantless arrest conducted either before or after the filing of the
in the following instances: information and the accused at no time asked
for such an investigation. However, before
a. When, in his presence, the person to be arraignment, the accused moved to quash the
arrested has committed, is actually information on the ground that the prosecutor
committing, or is attempting to commit an suffered from a want of authority to file the
offense; information because of his failure to conduct a
preliminary investigation before filing the
b. When an offense has just been committed, information, as required by the Rules of Court.
and he has probable cause to believe based
on personal knowledge of facts or a. Is the warrantless arrest of AX valid?
circumstances that the person to be
arrested has committed it; and A: No. The warrantless arrest is not valid because
the alleged offense has not just been committed. The
c. When the person to be arrested is a crime was allegedly committed one year before the
prisoner who has escaped from a penal arrest. (Sec. 5(b), Rule 113)
establishment or place where he is serving
final judgment or is temporarily confined b. Is he entitled to a preliminary investigation
while his case is pending, or has escaped before the filing of the information? Explain.
while being transferred from one (2004 Bar)
confinement to another.
A: Yes, he is entitled to a preliminary investigation
Q: As Cicero was walking down a dark alley one because he was not lawfully arrested without a
midnight, he saw an "owner-type jeepney" warrant (Sec. 7, Rule 112). He can move for a
approaching him. Sensing that the occupants of reinvestigation.
the vehicle were up to no good, he darted into a
corner and ran. The occupants of the vehicle − Q: A was killed by B during a quarrel over a
elements from the Western Police District − hostess in a nightclub. Two days after the
gave chase and apprehended him. The police incident, and upon complaint of the widow of A,
apprehended Cicero, frisked him and found a the police arrested B without a warrant of arrest
sachet of 0.09 gram of shabu tucked in his waist and searched his house without a search
and a Swiss knife in his secret pocket, and warrant.
detained him thereafter. Is the arrest and body-
search legal? (2010 Bar) a. Can the gun used by B in shooting A, which
was seized during the search of the house of
A: No. The arrest and the body-search were not B, be admitted in evidence?
legal. Cicero’s act of running does not show any
reasonable ground to believe that a crime has been A: No. The gun seized during the search of the house
committed or is about to be committed for the police of B without a search warrant is not admissible in
officers to apprehend him and conduct body search. evidence (Sec. 2 and 3[2], Art. III, 1987 Constitution).
Hence, the arrest was illegal as it does not fall under Moreover, the search was not an incident to a lawful
any of the circumstances for a valid warrantless arrest of a person under Sec. 13, Rule 126.
arrest provided in Section 5, Rule 113.
b. Is the arrest of B legal?
Q: AX swindled RY in the amount P10,000
sometime in mid-2003. On the strength of the A: No. A warrantless arrest requires that the crime
sworn statement given by RY personally to SPO1 has in fact just been committed and the police
Juan Ramos sometime in mid-2004, and without arresting has personal knowledge of facts that the
securing a warrant, the police officer arrested person to be arrested has committed it (Sec. 5, Rule
AX. Forthwith the police officer filed with the 113). Here, the crime has not just been committed

77
UST
UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS
BAR OPERATIONS
2021 ACADEMICSCOMMITTEE
 REMEDIAL Law
since a period of two days had already lapsed, and merits ensued. The court rendered judgment
the police arresting has no such personal knowledge convicting him. On appeal, FG claims that the
because he was not present when the incident judgment is void because he was illegally
happened. (Go v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 101837, arrested. If you were the Solicitor General,
February 11, 1992) counsel, for the People of the Philippines, how
would you refute said claim? (2000 Bar)
c. Under the circumstances, can B be convicted
of homicide? (1997 Bar) A: I would assert that any objection to the illegality
of the arrest of the accused without a warrant is
A: Yes. The gun is not indispensable in the deemed waived when he pleaded not guilty at the
conviction of A because the court may rely on arraignment without raising the question. It is too
testimonial or other evidence. late to complain about a warrantless arrest after
trial is commenced and completed and a judgment
Q: In a buy-bust operation, the police operatives of conviction rendered against the accused. (People
arrested the accused and seized from him a v. Cabiles, G.R. No. 112035, January 16, 1998)
sachet of shabu and an unlicensed firearm. The
accused was charged in two Informations, one Q: Boy Maton, a neighborhood tough guy, was
for violation of the “Dangerous Drug Act”, as arrested by a police officer on suspicion that he
amended, and another for illegal possession of was keeping prohibited drugs in his clutch bag.
firearms. The accused filed an action for When Boy Maton was searched immediately
recovery of the firearm in another court against after the arrest, the officer found and recovered
the police officers with an application for the 10 sachets of shabu neatly tucked in the inner
issuance of a writ of replevin. He alleged in his linings of the clutch bag. At the time of his arrest,
complaint that he was a military informer who Boy Maton was watching a basketball game
had been issued a written authority to carry said being played in the town plaza, and he was
firearm. The police officers moved to dismiss the cheering for his favorite team. He was
complaint on the ground that the subject subsequently charged with illegal possession of
firearm was in custodia legis. The court denied dangerous drugs, and he entered a plea of not
the motion and instead issued the writ of guilty when he was arraigned. During the trial,
replevin. Boy Maton moved for the dismissal of the
information on the ground that the facts
a. Was the seizure of the firearm valid? revealed that he had been illegally arrested. He
further moved for the suppression of the
A: Yes. The seizure of the firearm was valid because evidence confiscated from him as being the
it was seized in the course of a valid arrest in a buy- consequence of the illegal arrest, hence, the fruit
bust operation (Secs. 12 and 13, Rule 126). In such of the poisonous tree. The trial court, in denying
operation, a search warrant was not necessary. the motions of Boy Maton, explained that at the
(People v. Salazar, G.R. No. 98060, January 27, 1997) time the motions were filed Boy Maton had
already waived the right to raise the issue of the
b. Was the denial of the motion to dismiss legality of the arrest. The trial court observed
proper? (2003 Bar) that, pursuant to the Rules of Court, Boy Maton,
as the accused, should have assailed the validity
A: No. The denial of the motion to dismiss was not of the arrest before entering his plea to the
proper. The court had no authority to issue the writ information. Hence, the trial court opined that
of replevin whether the firearm was in custodia legis any adverse consequence of the alleged illegal
or not. The motion to recover the firearm should be arrest had also been equally waived.
filed in the court where the criminal action is
pending. Comment on the ruling of the trial court. (2017
Bar)
Q: FG was arrested without a warrant by
policemen while he was walking in a busy street. A: The ruling of the court denying the motion for
After the preliminary investigation, he was dismissal of the information on the ground of illegal
charged with rape and the corresponding arrest is proper. Under Sec. 9, Rule 117, the
information was filed in the RTC. On accused’s failure to file a motion to quash before
arraignment, he pleaded not guilty. Trial on the plea is a waiver of the objection to lack of personal

78


 QuAMTO (1987-2019)
jurisdiction or of the objection to an illegal arrest. A: The phrase “personal knowledge of the facts and
Here, Boy Maton entered a plea without filing a circumstances that the person to be arrested
motion to quash on the ground of lack of personal committed it” means that matters in relation to the
jurisdiction. Hence, he is deemed to have waived the supposed commission of the crime were within the
ground of illegal arrest which is subsumed under actual perception, personal evaluation or
lack of personal jurisdiction. observation of the police officer at the scene of the
crime. Thus, even though the police officer has not
However, the ruling denying the motion to suppress seen someone actually, fleeing, he could still make a
evidence is not correct. The Supreme Court has held warrantless arrest if, based on his personal
that a waiver of an illegal, warrantless arrest does evaluation of the circumstances at the scene of the
not carry with it a waiver of the inadmissibility of crime, he could determine the existence of probable
evidence seized during an illegal warrantless arrest cause that the person sought to be arrested has
(People v. Racho, G.R. No. 186529, August 3, 2010). A committed the crime; however, the determination
waiver of an illegal arrest is not a waiver of an illegal of probable cause and the gathering of facts or
search. The Constitution provides that evidence circumstances should be made immediately after
seized in violation of the right against illegal search the commission of the crime in order to comply with
is inadmissible in evidence. Hence, the evidence was the element of immediacy.
seized was virtue of an illegal search considering
that the arrest was illegal, rendering it inadmissible Determination of probable cause and issuance
in evidence. of warrant of arrest

Q: Under Section 5, Rule 113, a warrantless Q: An information for murder was filed against
arrest is allowed when an offense has just been Rapido. The RTC judge, after personally
committed and the peace officer has probable evaluating the prosecutor's resolution,
cause to believe, based on his personal documents and parties' affidavits submitted by
knowledge of facts and circumstances, that the the prosecutor, found probable cause and issued
person to be arrested has committed it. A a warrant of arrest. Rapido's lawyer examined
policeman approaches you for advice and asks the rollo of the case and found that it only
you how he will execute a warrantless arrest contained the copy of the information, the
against a murderer who escaped after killing a submissions of the prosecutor and a copy of the
person. The policeman arrived two (2) hours warrant of arrest. Immediately, Rapido's
after the killing and a certain Max was allegedly counsel filed a motion to quash the arrest
the killer per information given by a witness. He warrant for being void, citing as grounds:
asks you to clarify the following:
1. The judge before issuing the warrant did
a. How long after the commission of the crime not personally conduct a searching
can he still exeute the warrantless arrest? examination of the prosecution
witnesses in violation of his client's
A: In executing a warrantless arrest under Section 5, constitutionally-mandated rights;
Rule 113, the Supreme Court held that the
requirement that an offense has just been 2. There was no prior order finding
committed means that there must be a large probable cause before the judge issued
measure of immediacy between the time the offense the arrest warrant.
was committed and the time of the arrest (Pestilos v.
Generoso, G.R. No. 182601, November 10, 2014). If May the warrant of arrest be quashed on the
there was an appreciable lapse of time between the grounds cited by Rapido's counsel? State your
arrest and the commission of the crime, a warrant of reason for each ground. (2015 Bar)
arrest must be secured. In any case, personal
knowledge by the arresting officer is an A: No, the warrant of arrest may not be quashed
indispensable requirement to the validity of a vaid based on the grounds cited by Rapido’s counsel. In
warrantless arrest. the issuance of warrant of arrest, the mandate of the
Constitution is for the judge to personally determine
b. What does “personal knowledge of the facts the existence of probable cause. The words
and circumstances that the person to be “personal determination,” was interpreted by the
arrested committed it” mean? (2016 Bar) Supreme Court in Soliven v. Makasiar (G.R. No.

79
UST
UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS
BAR OPERATIONS
2021 ACADEMICSCOMMITTEE
 REMEDIAL Law
82585, November 14, 1988) as the exclusive and 114 that: “in no case shall bail be allowed after the
personal responsibility of the issuing judge to accused has commenced to serve sentence.” (People
satisfy himself as to the existence of probable cause. v. Fitzgerald, G.R. No. 149723, October 27, 2006)

What the law requires as personal determination on Q: When is bail a matter of right and when is it a
the part of a judge is that he should not rely solely matter of discretion? (1999, 2006, 2017, 2019
on the report of the investigating prosecutor. Thus, Bar)
personal examination of the complainant and his
witnesses is, thus, not mandatory and indispensable A: Bail is a matter of right: (a) before or after
in the determination of probable cause for the conviction by the Metropolitan Trial Court,
issuance of a warrant of arrest. (People v. Grey, G.R. Municipal Trial Court, Municipal Trial Court in
No. 10109, July 26, 2010) Cities, or Municipal Circuit Trial Court; (b) before
conviction by the Regional Trial Court of an offense
BAIL not punishable by death, reclusion perpetua, or life
imprisonment (Sec. 4, Rule 114); and (c) if the charge
Nature; When a matter of right; When a matter involves a capital offense and the evidence of guilt is
of discretion not strong. (Sec. 7, Rule 114)

Q: After Alma had started serving her sentence Bail is a matter of discretion upon conviction by the
for violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 (BP 22), Regional Trial Court of an offense not punishable by
she filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus, death, reclusion perpetua, or life imprisonment.
citing Vaca v. CA where the sentence of (Sec. 5, Rule 114)
imprisonment of a party found guilty of
violation of BP 22 was reduced to a fine equal to Q: When the accused is entitled as a matter of
double the amount of the check involved. She right to bail, may the court refuse to grant him
prayed that her sentence be similarly modified bail on the ground that there exists a high
and that she be immediately released from degree of probability the he will abscond or
detention. In the alternative, she prayed that escape? Explain. (1999 Bar)
pending determination on whether the Vaca
ruling applies to her, she be allowed to post bail A: If bail is a matter of right, it cannot be denied on
pursuant to Rule 102, Sec. 14, which provides the ground that there exists a high degree of
that if a person is lawfully imprisoned or probability that the accused will abscond or escape.
restrained on a charge of having committed an What the court can do is to increase the amount of
offense not punishable by death, he may be the bail. One of the guidelines that the judge may use
admitted to bail in the discretion of the court. in fixing a reasonable amount of bail is the
Accordingly, the trial court allowed Alma to post probability of the accused appearing in trial. (Sec
bail and then ordered her release. In your 9[g], Rule 114, as amended by Circular No. 12-94)
opinion, is the order of the trial court correct?
Q: At the Public Attorney's Office station in
a. Under Rule 102? Taguig where you are assigned, your work
requires you to act as public defender at the
A: No. Section 4, Rule 102 of the Rules of Court local Regional Trial Court and to handle cases
(Habeas Corpus) does not authorize a court to involving indigents.
discharge by writ of habeas corpus a person charged
with or convicted of an offense in the Philippines, or In one other case, an indigent mother seeks
of a person suffering imprisonment under lawful assistance for her 14-year old son who has been
judgment. arrested and detained for malicious mischief.
Would an application for bail be the appropriate
b. Under the Rules of Criminal Procedure? remedy or is there another remedy available?
(2008 Bar) Justify your chosen remedy and outline the
appropriate steps to take. (2013 Bar)
A: No. The trial court’s order releasing Alma on bail
even after judgment against her has become final A: Yes. An application for bail is an appropriate
and in fact she has started serving sentence, is a remedy to secure provisional remedy of the 14-year
brazen disregard of the mandate in Section 24, Rule old boy. Under the Rules, bail is a matter of right

80


 QuAMTO (1987-2019)
before or even after conviction before the MTC the nature of the offense from non-bailable to
which has jurisdiction over the crime of malicious bailable. Be that as it may, the denial of bail pending
mischief (Sec. 4, Rule 114). As such, bail can be appeal is a matter of wise discretion since after
posted as a matter of right. conviction by the trial court, the presumption of
innocence terminates and, accordingly, the
Q: A was charged with murder in the lower constitutional right to bail ends. (Leviste v. Court of
court. His Petition for Bail was denied after a Appeals, G.R. No. 189122, March 17, 2010)
summary hearing on the ground that the
prosecution had established a strong evidence Q: D was charged with murder, a capital offense.
of guilt. No Motion for Reconsideration was filed After arraignment, he applied for bail. The trial
from the denial of the Petition for Bail. During court ordered the prosecution to present its
the reception of the evidence of the accused, the evidence in full on the ground that only on the
accused reiterated his petition for bail on the basis of such presentation could it determine
ground that the witnesses so far presented by whether the evidence of D’s guilt was strong for
the accused had shown that no qualifying purposes of bail. Is the ruling correct? Why?
aggravating circumstance attended the killing. (2002 Bar)
The court denied the petition on the grounds
that it had already ruled that: (i) the evidence of A: No, the prosecution is only required to present as
guilt is strong; (ii) the resolution for the Petition much evidence as is necessary to determine
for Bail is solely based on the evidence whether the evidence of D’s guilt is strong for
presented by the prosecution; and (iii) no purposes of bail. (Sec. 8, Rule 114)
Motion for Reconsideration was filed from the
denial of the Petition for Bail. Q: In an information charging them of Murder,
policemen A, B and C were convicted of
a. If you are the Judge, how will you resolve the Homicide. A appealed from the decision but was
incident? denied. Finally, the Court of Appeals rendered a
decision acquitting A on the ground that the
A: If I were the Judge, I would grant the second evidence pointed to the NPA as the killers of the
Petition for Bail. Under Section 7, Rule 114, no victim.
person charge with a capital offense, or an offense
punishable by reclusion perpetua or life a. Was the Court of Appeal’s denial of A’s
imprisonment, shall be admitted to bail when application for bail proper?
evidence of guilt is strong, regardless of the stage of
the criminal prosecution. A: Yes, the Court of Appeals properly denied A’s
application for bail. The court had the discretion to
In this case, the evidence of guilt for the crime of do so. An appellant who, though convicted of an
murder is not strong, as shown by the prosecution’s offense not punishable by death, reclusion perpetua
failure to prove the circumstance that will qualify or life imprisonment, was nevertheless originally
the crime to, and consequently convict the accused charged with a capital offense can hardly be
of, murder. Accordingly, the accused should be unmindful of the fact that, in the ordinary course of
allowed to post bail because the evidence of his guilt things, there is a substantial likelihood of his
is not strong (Sec. 13, Art. III, 1987 Constitution). conviction (and the corresponding penalty) being
Besides, it is settled that an Order granting bail is affirmed on appeal, or worse, the not insignificant
merely interlocutory which cannot attain finality. possibility and infinitely more unpleasant prospect
(Pobre v. People, G.R. No. 141805, July 8, 2015) of instead being found guilty of the capital offense
originally charged. (Obosa v. Court of Appeals, G.R.
b. Suppose the accused is convicted of the No. 114350, January 16, 1997)
crime of homicide and the accused filed a
Notice of Appeal, is he entitled to bail? (2014 b. Can B and C be benefited by the decision of
Bar) the Court of Appeals? (1998 Bar)

A: Yes. The accused is entitled to bail subject to the A: B, who did not appeal, can be benefited by the
discretion of the Court. Under Section 5, Rule 114, decision of the Court of Appeals which is favourable
the appellate court may allow him to post bail and applicable to him (Sec. 11[a], Rule 122). On the
because the trial court in convicting him, changed

81
UST
UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS
BAR OPERATIONS
2021 ACADEMICSCOMMITTEE
 REMEDIAL Law
other hand, the benefit will also apply to C even if his of Hong Kong Special Administrative Region v. Olalia,
appeal is dismissed because of his escape. G.R. No. 153675, April 19, 2007)

Q: If an information was filed in the RTC-Manila Q: May the Court require a witness to post bail?
charging D with homicide and he was arrested in Explain your answer. (1999 Bar)
Quezon City, in what court or courts may he
apply for bail? Explain. (2002 Bar) A: Yes. The court may require a witness to post bail
if he is a material witness and bail is needed to
A: D may apply for bail in the RTC-Manila where the secure his appearance. The rules provide that when
information was filed or in the RTC-Quezon City the court is satisfied, upon proof or oath, that a
where he was arrested, or if no judge, thereof is material witness will not testify when required, it
available, with any metropolitan trial judge, may, upon motion of either party, order the witness
municipal trial judge or municipal circuit trial judge to post bail in such sum as may be deemed proper.
therein. (Sec. 17, Rule 114) Upon refusal to post bail, the court shall commit him
to prison until he complies or is legally discharged
Q: In what forms may bail be given? (1999 Bar) after his testimony is taken. (Sec. 6, Rule 119)

A: Bail may be given by a corporate surety, or Q: A was charged with a non-bailable offense. At
through a property bond, cash deposit or the time when the warrant of arrest was issued,
recognizance (Sec. 1, Rule 114). he was confined in the hospital and could not
obtain a valid clearance to leave the hospital. He
Q: RP and State XX have a subsisting Extradition filed a petition for bail saying therein that he be
Treaty. Pursuant thereto RP’s Secretary of considered as having placed himself under the
Justice (SoJ) filed a Petition for Extradition jurisdiction of the court. May the court entertain
before the MM RTC alleging that Juan Kwan is his petition? Why or why not? (2012 Bar)
the subject of an arrest warrant duly issued by
the proper criminal court of State XX in A: Yes, a person is deemed to be under the custody
connection with a criminal case for tax evasion of the law either when he has been arrested or has
and fraud before his return to RP as a surrendered himself to the jurisdiction of the court.
balikbayan. Petitioner prays that Juan be The accused who is confined in a hospital may be
extradited and delivered to the proper deemed to be in the custody of the law if he clearly
authorities of State XX for trial, and that to communicates his submission to the court while he
prevent Juan’s flight in the interim, a warrant for is confined in a hospital. (Paderanga v. Court of
his immediate arrest be issued. Before the RTC Appeals, G.R. No. 115407, August 28, 1995)
could act on the petition for extradition, Juan
filed before it an urgent motion, in sum praying Q: Paz was awakened by a commotion coming
(1) that SoJ’s application for an arrest warrant from a condo unit next to hers. Alarmed, she
be set for hearing and (2) that Juan be allowed called up the nearby police station. PO1 Remus
to post bail in the event the court would issue an and P02 Romulus proceeded to the condo unit
arrest warrant. Should the court grant or deny identified by Paz. PO 1 Remus knocked at the
Juan’s prayer? Reason. (2004 Bar) door and when a man opened the door, PO1
Remus and his companions introduced
A: The Court should grant Juan’s prayer. An themselves as police officers. The man readily
extradition proceeding, while ostensibly identified himself as Oasis Jung and gestured to
administrative, bears all earmarks of a criminal them to come in. Inside, the police officers saw a
process. However, while our extradition law does young lady with her nose bleeding and face
not provide for the grant of bail to an extraditee, swollen. Asked by P02 Romulus what happened,
there is no provision prohibiting him or her from the lady responded that she was beaten up by
filing a motion for bail, a right to due process under Oasis Jung. The police officers arrested Oasis
the Constitution. Jung and brought him and the young lady back
to the police station. PO1 Remus took the young
In light of the recent developments in international lady's statement who identified herself as AA.
law, where emphasis is given to the worth of the She narrated that she is a sixteen-year-old high
individual and the sanctity of human rights, an school student; that previous to the incident, she
extraditee may be allowed to post bail. (Government had sexual intercourse with Oasis Jung at least

82


 QuAMTO (1987-2019)
five times on different occasions and she was RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED
paid P5,000.00 each time and it was the first
time that Oasis Jung physically hurt her. P02 Q: Under Republic Act No. 8353, one may be
Romulus detained Oasis Jung at the station's jail. charged with and found guilty of qualified rape
After the inquest proceeding, the public if he knew on or before the commission of the
prosecutor filed an information for Violation of crime that he is afflicted with Human Immuno-
R.A. No. 9262 (The VAWC Law) for physical Deficiency Virus (HIV)/Acquired Immune
violence and five separate informations for Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS) or any other
violation of R.A. No. 7610 (The Child Abuse sexually transmissible disease and the virus or
Law). Oasis Jung's lawyer filed a motion to be disease is transmitted to the victim. Under
admitted to bail but the court issued an order Section 17(a) of Republic Act No. 8504 the court
that approval of his bail bond shall be made only may compel the accused to submit himself to a
after his arraignment. blood test where blood samples would be
extracted from his veins to determine whether
a. Did the court properly impose that bail he has HIV. (2005, 2010 Bar)
condition?
a. Are the rights of the accused to be presumed
A: No. The court did not properly impose that bail innocent of the crime charged, to privacy,
condition. The Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure and against self-incrimination violated by
do not require the arraignment of the accused as such compulsory testing? Explain.
prerequisite to the conduct of hearings in the bail
petition. A person is allowed to file a petition for bail A: No. The court may compel the accused to submit
as soon as he is deprived of his liberty by virtue of himself to a blood test to determine whether he has
his arrest or voluntary surrender. An accused need HIV under Sec. 17(a) of R.A. No. 8054. His rights to
not wait for his arraignment before filing the bail be presumed innocent of the crime charged, to
petition. (Serapio v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 149116, privacy and against self-incrimination are not
January 2, 2003) violated by such compulsory testing. In an action in
which the physical condition of a party is in
Moreover, the condition that the approval of bail controversy, the court may order the accused to
bonds shall be made only after arraignment would submit to a physical examination. (Sec. 1, Rule 28)
place the accused in a position where he has to
choose between: (1) filing a motion to quash (the b. If the result of such test shows that he is HIV
Information) and thus delay his released on bail positive, and the prosecution offers such
because until his motion to quash can be resolved, result in evidence to prove the qualifying
his arraignment cannot be held; and (2) foregoing circumstance under the Information for
the filing of a motion to quash (the Information) so qualified rape, should the court reject such
that he can be arraigned at once and thereafter be result on the ground that it is the fruit of a
released on bail. (Lavides v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. poisonous tree? Explain.
129670, February 1, 2000)
A: No. Since the rights of the accused are not
b. After his release from detention on bail, can violated because the compulsory testing is
Oasis Jung still question the validity of his authorized by the law, the result of the testing
arrest? (2015 Bar) cannot be considered to be the fruit of a poisonous
tree and can be offered in evidence to prove the
A: Yes. Oasis Jung can still question the validity of qualifying circumstance under the information for
his arrest even after his release from detention on qualified rape under R.A. No. 8353. The fruit of the
bail. Under Sec. 26, Rule 114, an application for or poisonous tree doctrine refers to that rule of
admission to bail shall not bar the accused from evidence that excludes any evidence which may
challenging the validity of his arrest or the legality have been derived or acquired from a tainted or
of the warrant issued therefor, or from assailing the polluted source. Such evidence is inadmissible for
regularity or questioning the absence of a having emanated from spurious origins. The
preliminary investigation of a charge against him, doctrine, however, does not apply to the results
provided that he raises them before entering his obtained pursuant to Sec. 1, Rule 28, as it does not
plea. contemplate a search within the meaning of the law.

83
UST
UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS
BAR OPERATIONS
2021 ACADEMICSCOMMITTEE
 REMEDIAL Law
(People v. Montilla, G.R. No. 123872, January 30, Procedure enjoins that in all criminal prosecutions
1998) the accused shall be entitled to confront and cross-
examine the witnesses against him at the trial.
Q: X was arrested for the alleged murder of a 6-
year old lad. He was read his Miranda rights Accordingly, the testimony of a witness given on
immediately upon being apprehended. In the direct examination should be stricken off the record
course of his detention, X was subjected to three where there was not adequate opportunity for
hours of non-stop interrogation. He remained cross-examination. (People v. Fernando Monjey
quiet until, on the 3rd hour, he answered "yes" Rosario, G.R. No. 146689, September 27, 2002)
to the question of whether "he prayed for
forgiveness for shooting down the boy." The ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
trial court, interpreting X’s answer as an
admission of guilt, convicted him. On appeal, X’s The motion is not meritorious. The right of a party
counsel faulted the trial court in its to confront and cross-examine opposing witnesses
interpretation of his client’s answer, arguing in a judicial litigation is a personal one which may
that X invoked his Miranda rights when he be waived, expressly or impliedly, by conduct
remained quiet for the first two hours of amounting to a renunciation of the right of cross
questioning. Rule on the assignment of error. examination. Where a party has had the opportunity
(2002, 2010 Bar) to cross-examine a witness but failed to avail
himself of it, he necessarily forfeits the right to
A: The assignment of error invoked by X’s counsel is cross-examine and the testimony given on direct
impressed with merit since there has been no examination of the witness will be received or
express waiver of X’s Miranda rights. In order to allowed to remain in the record. The conduct of a
have a valid waiver of the Miranda rights, the same party which may be construed as an implied waiver
must be in writing and made in the presence of his of the right to cross-examine may take various
counsel. The uncounselled extrajudicial confession forms. (People v. Abatayao, G.R. No. 139456, July 7,
of X being without a valid waiver of his Miranda 2004).
rights, is inadmissible, as well as any information
derived therefrom. (Ho Wai Pang v. People, G.R. No. Under the Doctrine of Incomplete Testimony, the
176299, October 19, 2011) direct testimony of a witness who dies before
conclusion of the cross examination can be stricken
Q: Pedro, the principal witness in a criminal only insofar as not covered by the cross-
case, testified and completed his testimony on examination and that a referee has no power to
direct examination in 2015. Due to several strike the examination of a witness on his failure to
postponements by the accused, grounded on his appear for cross-examination where a good excuse
recurring illness, which were all granted by the is given. (People v. Hon. Alberto V. Seneris, G.R. No. L-
judge, the cross-examination of Pedro was 48883, August 6, 1980)
finally set on October 15, 2016. Before the said
date, Pedro died. The accused moved to At any rate, the accused may be deemed to have
expunge Pedro’s testimony on the ground that it waived his right to confront and cross-examine the
violates his right of confrontation and the right witness when he asked the postponements of the
to cross- examine the witness. The prosecution hearing for several times; therefore, the direct
opposed the motion and asked Pedro’s testimony of a witness who dies before the
testimony on direct examination be admitted as conclusion of the cross-examination should not be
evidence. Is the motion meritorious? (2016 Bar) expunged from the records.

A: The motion is meritorious. The cross- ARRAIGNMENT AND PLEA
examination of a witness is an absolute right, not a
mere privilege, of the party against whom he is Q: D was charged with theft of an article worth
called. With regard to the accused, it is a right P15,000.00. Upon being arraigned, he pleaded
guaranteed by the fundamental law as part of due not guilty to the offense charged. Thereafter,
process. Article III, Sec. 14(2) of the 1987 before trial commenced, he asked the court to
Constitution specifically mandates that “the accused allow him to change his plea of not guilty to a
shall enjoy the right to meet the witnesses face to plea of guilty but only to estafa involving
face,” and Rule 115, Sec. 1(f) of the Rules of Criminal

84


 QuAMTO (1987-2019)
P5,000.00. Can the court allow D to change his A: No. In effect, the judgment rendered by the trial
plea? Why? (2002 Bar) court against Mr. W which was based on a void plea
bargaining is also void ab initio and cannot be
A: No, because a plea of guilty to a lesser offense considered to have attained finality for the simple
may be allowed if the lesser offense is necessarily reason that a void judgment has no legality from its
included in the offense charged (Sec. 2, Rule 116). inception. Thus, since the judgment of conviction
Estafa involving P5,000.00 is not necessarily rendered against Mr. W was void, double jeopardy
included in theft of an article worth P15,000.00. will not lie.

Q: Mr. W was charged with raping his neighbor's MOTION TO QUASH
seventeen (17)-year old daughter, AAA. When
he was arraigned, Mr. W expressed his desire to Grounds
plead "guilty," provided that his sentence be
substantially reduced. Both AAA's mother and Q: Give two (2) grounds to quash an Information.
the prosecutor were amenable to the proposal. (1998 Bar)
Consequently, the judge entered a plea of guilty
for Mr. W and sentenced him to serve a reduced A: Two grounds to quash an Information are:
straight penalty of only ten (10) years of
imprisonment, as agreed upon. 1. That the facts charged do not constitute an
offense; and
(a) Did the judge properly enter a plea of guilty 2. That the court trying the case has no
for Mr. W? Explain. jurisdiction over the offense charged or the
person of the accused.
A: No. The act of Mr. W is a conditional plea,
meaning, subject to the condition that he be NOTE: The other grounds are:
punished to a certain penalty. In that case, the trial
court should have vacated such a plea and entered a 3. That the officer who filed the Information
plea of not guilty for a conditional plea of guilty, or had no authority to do so;
one subject to the proviso that a certain penalty be 4. That it does not conform substantially to
imposed upon him. A conditional plea of guilty is the prescribed form;
equivalent to a plea of not guilty and would, 5. That more than one offense is charged
therefore, require a full-blown trial before judgment except in those cases in which existing laws
may be rendered. prescribe a single punishment for various
offenses;
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER: 6. That the criminal action or liability has
been extinguished;
No. Rape is considered as a capital offense being 7. That it contains averments which, if true,
punishable by reclusion perpetua. Thus, under would constitute a legal excuse or
Section 3, Rule 166 of the Rules of Court, the Judge Justification; and
is duty bound: (1) to conduct a searching inquiry 8. That the accused has been previously
into the voluntariness and full comprehension of the convicted or in Jeopardy of being convicted,
consequences of the plea of guilt; (2) to require the or acquitted of the offense charged. (Sec. 3,
prosecution to still prove the guilt of the accused Rule 117)
and the precise degree of his culpability; and (3) to
inquire whether or not the accused wishes to Q: A criminal information is filed in court
present evidence in his behalf and allow him to do charging Anselmo with homicide. Anselmo files
so if he desires. a motion to quash the information on the ground
that no preliminary investigation was
(b) Assuming that Mr. W was once more charged conducted. Will the motion be granted? Why or
with the crime of Rape committed against why not? (2009 Bar)
AAA based on the same incident, may Mr. W
validly invoke the defense of double A: No, the motion to quash will not be granted. The
jeopardy through a motion to quash and will lack of preliminary investigation is not a ground for
such motion prosper? Explain. (2019 Bar) a motion to quash. Preliminary investigation is only
a statutory right and can be waived. The accused

85
UST
UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS
BAR OPERATIONS
2021 ACADEMICSCOMMITTEE