On November 20, 2023, Nana filed a case for the declaration of nullity of her marriage with

Moskov. While the case was pending. Nana filed a criminal case for Rigamy against Moskov.
Moskov moved for the suspension of the proceedings in criminal case on the basis of a
prejudicial question because of the pending civil case with the Family Court Vigan City.

a. What is a prejudicial question? What are its requisites? (3%)

ANS: A prejudicial question is one based on a fact separate and distinct from the crime but is so
intimately related to it that it determines the guilt or innocence of the accused.

What are the elements of a prejudicial question?

1. The previously filed civil action involves an issue which is similar or is intimately related with
an issue raised in the subsequent criminal action 2. The resolution of the issue will determine
whether or not the criminal action may proceed.

When is an action for annulment of marriage prejudicial to a bigamy case?

An action for annulment of marriage is prejudicial to a bigamy case only if the accused in
the bigamy charge is also the one asking for annulment of the second (bigamous)
marriage based on vitiation of consent. This is because in such a case, if the court
declares that the party’s consent was indeed vitiated and annuls the marriage, then it
would also mean that the party did not willingly commit the crime of bigamy. It would
thus be determinative of the guilt or innocence of the accused.

b. Rule on the motion of Moskov.

ANS
Since the criminal case for bigamy was filed ahead of the civil action for declaration of nullity of
marriage, there is no prejudicial question. At any rate, the outcome of the civil case for
annulment has no bearing upon the determination of the guilt or innocence of the
accused in the criminal case for bigamy because the accused has already committed the
crime of bigamy when he contracted the second marriage without the first marriage
having being declared null and void.

2. On May 09, 2022, Silvannía and Novaria recruited and offered Trithel a job in HongKong.
They promised her a monthly salary of P50,000.00. Moved by the promise of Silvanna and
Novaria, Irithel agreed to work in HongKong. Novaria prepared all the documents needed by
Irithel. Novaria also gave Irithel her plane ticket as well as her luggage to bring on her trip. Irithel
was then apprehended at the HongKong airport and found out that her luggage contained
prohibited drugs,

Considering that Irithel is in custody of the HongKong government, the office of the public
prosecutor filed a Motion for Leave of Court to take the Testimony of Trithel by Deposition Upon
Written Interrogatories. The RTC. Vigan City, granted the motion for leave of court filed by the
prosecution. The accused were given a period to comment on the proposed questions on the
deposition upon written interrogatories for Irithel. The Court likewise rule that the taking of the
deposition shall be presided by the trial judge. Silvanna and Novaria objected on the motion
asserting that deposition under the Rules of Court is not applicable in criminal cases. Further,
depositions should be taken during trial and not before trial since such method of taking
testimony will violate their right to confront the witness.

a. Is the rule on depositions under Rule 23-25 of the Rules of Court applicable in criminal
cases?

ANSWER:

YES. Deposition by written interrogatories under Rule 23 of the Revised Rules on Civil
Procedure may be applied suppletorily in criminal proceedings so long as there is a
compelling reason. In the case of People v. Sergio (G.R.No. 240053, 09 Oct. 2019), the
Supreme Court upheld the applicability of Sec. 23 in a CRIMINAL proceeding pursuant to
a liberal construction of the Rules and in the higher interest of affording the State the
right to due process.

b. Does the taking of deposition by written interrogatories on Irithel violative of the right of the
accused to confront a witness?

ANS:

The Supreme Court noted that the deposition by written interrogatories does not violate
therein accused's right to confrontation as long as (a) the parameters laid down by the
trial court are sufficient in detail ensuring that the witness will give her testimony under
oath to deter lying by the threat of perjury charge, (b) the witness is still subjected to
cross-examination so as to determine the presence of any falsehood in her testimony;
and (c) the guidelines enable the trial court judge to observe her demeanor as a witness
and assess her credibility.

3. Gusion was charged with homicide for the death of Hylos before the RTC Vigan City. A
commitment order was issued against Gusion. He posted hail and was eventually released from
detention. His arraignment was set on November 5, 2023. Thereafter, the heirs of Hylos as
private complainants filed, with the conformity of the public prosecutor, an Urgent Motion to
defer the Proceedings to allow the public prosecutor to re-examine the evidence on record and
conduct a re-investigation to determine the proper offense. The Court issued an Order deferring
Gusion's arraignment and allowed the public prosecutor to conduct re-investigation to determine
the proper offense. The public prosecutor submitted its Amended Information charging Gusion
for the crime of Murder, which the Court admitted and directed the issuance of a warrant of
arrest against Gusion. The Court set the arraignment of Gusion on January 18, 2024. Gusion
raised his objection to the Amended Information arguing that the private complainants does not
have the right to cause the re-investigation of the case after the criminal information had already
been filed with the Court. He asserted that such right to request for re-investigation belongs to
the accused. Rule on the objection of Gusion.

ANS: -
—-

What are the grounds that the accused may invoke to quash a complaint or information?

ANS: 1. That the facts charged do not constitute an offense; 2. That the court trying the
case has no jurisdiction over the offense charged; 3. That the court trying the case has
no jurisdiction over the person of the accused;

What are the grounds that the accused may invoke to quash a complaint or information?

1. That the facts charged do not constitute an offense; 2. That the court trying the case
has no jurisdiction over the offense charged; 3. That the court trying the case has no
jurisdiction over the person of the accused; 4. That the officer who filed the information
had no authority to do so; 5. That it does not conform substantially to the prescribed
form; 6. That more than one offense is charged except when a single punishment for
various offenses is prescribed by law (duplicitous); 7. That the criminal action or liability
has been extinguished; 8. That it contains averments which, if true, would constitute a
legal excuse or justification; 9. That the accused has been previously convicted or
acquitted of the offense charged, or the case against him was dismissed or otherwise
terminated without his express consent. (double jeopardy)

4. Chuo was charged with violation of Section 5 of RA 9165. He pleaded guilty to a lesser
offense of Section 12 of RA 9165. The prosecution objected to the offer of plea bargain of the
accused. The Court granted Chuo's plea bargaining proposal finding that the prosecution's
opposition thereto has no valid factual and legal basis. Chuo was then re- arraigned where he
pleaded guilty to a lesser offense of Section 12, RA 9165. The prosecution moved for a
reconsideration arguing that plea bargaining is not allowed in drugs cases. He further argued
that the granting of plea bargaining is with conformity of the prosecutor and the offended party.
Rule on the argument of the prosecutor. (5%

In the consolidated cases of People v. Montierro, (G.R No. 254564), Baldadera v. People
(G.R. No. 254564); and Re: Letter of the Philippine Judges Association Expressing its
Concern over the Ramifications of the Decisions in G.R. No. 247575 and G.R. No. 250295
(A.M. No. 21-07-16-SC), the Supreme Court En Banc underscored the stability and
independence of the Court and its rule-making power in resolving the conflict between
Department of Justice (DOJ) Circular No. 27, which prohibits plea bargaining for illegal
sale of dangerous drugs to the lesser offense of illegal possession of drug paraphernalia
under Republic Act No. 9165, or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, and
the SC’s Resolution in A.M. No. 18-03-16-SC adopting the Plea Bargaining Framework in
Drugs Cases.
Holding that plea bargaining in the prosecution of drugs cases goes into the very matters
of fundamental constitutional rights, the Court resolved to clarify the guidelines it earlier
issued in A.M. No. 18-03-16-SC, dated April 10, 2018. Hence, while the Supreme Court
takes judicial notice of the DOJ’s efforts to amend DOJ Circular No. 27 to conform with
the Plea Bargaining Framework in Drugs Cases, the Court nevertheless issues the
following guidelines for the guidance of both the Bench and the Bar:

Offers for plea bargaining must be initiated in writing by way of a formal written motion
filed by the accused in court. The lesser offense which the accused proposes to plead
guilty to must necessarily be included in the offense charged. the Philippines, plea
bargaining in drug-related cases is primarily governed by Section 23 of Republic Act No.
9165, also known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, as well as
relevant Supreme Court rulings and regulations issued by the Department of Justice
(DOJ). Plea bargaining allows an accused in criminal cases to plead guilty to a lesser
offense than originally charged in exchange for a lighter sentence. This mechanism
serves as a means to decongest the judiciary’s docket and promote expediency in cases
where appropriate.

5. Harley was charged with Homicide. After the prosecution had rested and made its formal
offer of evidence, Harley filed a motion with leave of court to file a demurrer to evidence. The
prosecution was allowed to comment thereon. Thereafter, the court granted the demurer, finding
that Harley could not have committed the offense charged. The prosecution filed a motion for
reconsideration on the ground that the court order granting the demurer was not in accord with
law and jurisprudence. Will the motion prosper?
ANS: Grant of Demurrer: If the court grants the demurrer to evidence, the case is dismissed,
and in criminal cases, it results in the acquittal of the accused.

----
Distinguish the effects of the filing of a demurrer to the evidence in a criminal case and its filing
in a civil case. (2007 BAR)

A: The following are the distinctions in effects of demurrer to the evidence in criminal
cases from that in civil cases: 1) In criminal cases, demurrer to the evidence requires
prior leave of court, otherwise the accused would lose his right to present defense
evidence if filed and denied; in civil cases, no leave of court is required for filing such
demurrer 2) In criminal cases, when such demurrer is granted, the dismissal of the case
is not appealable inasmuch as the dismissal would amount to an acquittal, unless made
by a court acting without or in excess of jurisdiction; in civil cases, when such demurrer
is granted, the dismissal of the case can be appealed by the plaintiff; 3) In criminal cases,
the accused loses his right to present his defense-evidence in the trial court when he
filed the demurrer without prior leave of court; while in civil cases, the defendant loses
his right to present his defense-evidence only if the plaintiff appealed such dismissal and
the case is before the appellate court already since the case would be decided only on
the basis of plaintiff’s evidence on record.

—
Compare the effects of denial of demurrer to evidence in a civil case with those of a denial of
demurrer to evidence in a criminal case. (2003 BAR)

A: In a civil case, the defendant has the right to file a demurrer to evidence without leave
of court. If his demurrer is denied, he has the right to present evidence. If his demurrer is
granted and on appeal by the plaintiff, the appellate court reverses the order and renders
judgment for the plaintiff, the defendant loses his right to present evidence. (Rule 33,
ROC, as amended) In a criminal case, the accused has to obtain leave of court to file a
demurrer to evidence. If he obtains leave of court and his demurrer to evidence is denied,
he has the right to present evidence in his defense. If his demurrer to evidence is
granted, he is acquitted, and the prosecution cannot appeal. If the accused does not
obtain leave of court and his demurrer to evidence is denied, he is deemed to have
waived his right to present evidence and the case is decided on the basis of the evidence
for the prosecution. The court may also dismiss the action on the ground of insufficiency
of the evidence on its own initiative after giving the prosecution the opportunity to be
heard. (Sec. 23, Rule 119, ROC, as amended)

—
What is reverse trial and when may it be resorted to? Explain briefly. (5%)

A: Usually, the prosecution presents its evidence to establish the guilt of the accused
first. But a reverse trial happens if the accused admits the killing but claims self-defense.
He must first establish the elements of self-defense in order to overturn the presumption
that he was guilty of the offense.

8. a. Enumerate the requisites of a 'trial in absentia' (2%)

1. The accused has already been arraigned; 2. He has been duly notified of the trial 3. His
failure to appear at the trial is unjustifiable. Can the right to be present at the trial be
waived? Yes, except in the following situations, where the presence of the accused at the
trial is required: 1. Arraignment; 2. During promulgation of judgment, except if it is for a
light offense; 3. When the presence of the accused at the trial is necessary for purposes
of identification, unless he admits beforehand that he is the same person charged.

b. Enumerate the requisites of 'promulgation of judgment in absentia (2%).

Judgment must be promulgated in the presence of the accused. But if the conviction is
for a light offense, judgment may be promulgated in the presence of his counsel or
representative. Also, if the accused fails to attend the promulgation, even if he was
notified thereof, or if he jumped bail or escaped from prison, judgment may be validly
promulgated in absentia.

9. Arlot was charged in an Information with the crime of homicide. He filed a motion to quash on
the ground that no preliminary investigation was conducted. Will the motion be granted? (5%)

Ans: NO, the motion to quash will not be granted. The lack of preliminary investigation is
not a ground for a motion to quash. Preliminary investigation is only a statutory right and
can be waived. The accused should instead file a motion for reinvestigation within five
(5) days after he learn of the filing in Court of the case against him. (Sec. 6, Rule 112,
ROC, as amended)

10. Balmond was convicted for murder by the Regional Trial Court of Candon City in a decision
promulgated on September 30, 2022. On October 5, 2022, Balmond 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, 2022, the private prosecutor, with the conformity of the public
prosecutor, filed an Opposition to Balmond's motion. On October 9, 2022, the court granted
Balmond's motion. On October 12, 2022, the public prosecutor filed a motion for
reconsideration. The court issued an Order dated October 16, 2022 denying the public
prosecutor's motion for reconsideration. The public prosecutor received his copy of the order of
denial on October 20, 2022 while the private prosecutor received his copy on October 26, 2022.

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

ANS: The remedy of the prosecution is to file a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the
Rules of Court, because the denial of a motion for reconsideration is merely an
interlocutory order and there is no plain, speedy and adequate remedy under the course
of law. Be that as it may, it may be argued that appeal is the appropriate remedy from an
order denying a motion for reconsideration of an order granting a motion for new trial
because an order denying a motion for reconsideration was already removed in the
enumeration of matters that cannot be a subject of an appeal under Sec. 1, Rule 41 of the
Rules of Court. (UPLC Suggested Answers)

b.) In what court and within what period should a remedy be availed of? (2%)

Ans: Following the principle of judicial hierarchy, the petition for certiorari should be
filed before the Court of Appeals within sixty (60) days from receipt of the copy of the
order of denial of the public prosecutor’s motion for reconsideration, or on 20 Oct. 2015.
(ibid.)

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

Ans: The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) should pursue the remedy. In criminal
proceedings on appeal in the Court of Appeals or in the Supreme Court, the authority to
represent the people is vested solely in the Solicitor General. Under P.D. No. 4478 among
the specific powers and functions of the OSG is to “represent the government in the
Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals in all criminal proceedings.” This provision has
been carried over to the Revised Administrative Code particularly in Book IV, Title III,
Chapter 12 thereof. Without doubt, the OSG is the appellate counsel of the People of the
Philippines in all criminal cases. (Cariño v. de Castro, G.R. No. 176084, 30 Apr. 2008)

What are the grounds for a new trial?

1. That errors of law or irregularities prejudicial to the substantial rights of the accused
have been committed during the trial (errors of law or irregularities); 2. That new and
material evidence has been discovered which the accused could not with reasonable
diligence have discovered and produced at the trial and which if introduced and admitted
would probably change the judgment (newly discovered evidence). 3. If the case is being
heard by the CA or SC, it may determine other grounds in the exercise of its discretion.

What are the requisites for granting a new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence?

1. The evidence must have been discovered after trial; 2. Such evidence could not have
been discovered and produced at the trial even with the exercise of reasonable diligence;
3. The evidence is material, not merely cumulative, corroborative, or impeaching; 4. The
evidence must go to the merits, such that it would produce a different result if admitted.

11. An Information for Rape was filed against Mario for having carnal knowledge with AAA, a
sixteen (16) year old daughter of his compare Luigi. During arraignment, Mario expressed his
desire to plead "guilty." He begged that his sentence be substantially reduced. Both AAA's
parents and the prosecutor were amenable with the proposal. Consequently, the judge entered
a plea of not guilty for Mario and sentenced him to serve a reduced straight penalty of only ten
(10) years of imprisonment, as agreed upon.

a) Did the judge properly enter a plea of guilty for Mario? Explain with legal basis. (3%)

NO. The act of Mr. W is a conditional plea, meaning,

subject to the condition that he be punished to a certain
penalty. In that case, the trial court should have vacated
such a plea and entered a plea of not guilty for a conditional plea of guilty, or one subject
to the proviso that a certain penalty be imposed upon him. A conditional plea of guilty is
equivalent to a plea of not guilty and would, therefore, require a full-blown trial before
judgment may be rendered.
(UP BOC 2019 Bar Questions and Suggested Answers)

b) Assuming that Mario was once more charged with the crime of rape committed against AAA
based on the same incident, may Mario validly invoke the defense of double jeopardy through a
motion to quash and will such motion prosper) Explain with legal basis. (5%)

NO. In effect, the judgment rendered by the trial court against Mr. W which was based on
a void plea bargaining is also void ab initio and cannot be considered to have attained
finality for the simple reason that a void judgment has no legality from its inception.
Thus, since the judgment of conviction rendered against Mr. W was void, double
jeopardy will not lie.

12: Chika filed a complaint for murder against Chaka. Probable cause was found, thus an
Information was filed before the BTC of Vigan City. Before the arraignment for the crime of
murder, Chika executed an Affidavit of Desistance stating that she was not sure if Chaka was
the man who killed her husband. The public prosecutor filed a Motion to Quash the Information
on the ground that with private complainant's desistance, he did not have evidence sufficient to
convict the accused. On 02 January 2020, the court without further proceedings granted the
motion and provisionally dismissed the case. Chaka gave his express consent to the provisional
dismissal of the case. Chika was notified of the dismissal but she refused to give her consent.
Subsequently, Chika urged the public prosecutor to refile the murder charge because the
accused failed to pay the consideration which he had promised for the execution of the Affidavit
of Desistance. The public prosecutor obliged and refiled the murder charge against Chaka on
01 February 2022. Chaka filed a Motion to Quash the Information on the ground that the
provisional dismissal of the case had already become permanent.

Answer:

(a) Was the provisional dismissal of the case proper?

A: The provisional dismissal of the case was proper because the accused gave his
express consent thereto and the offended party was notified. It was not necessary for the
offended party to give her consent thereto. (Sec. 8, Rule 117, ROC, as amended)

(b) Resolve the Motion to Quash.

A: The motion to quash the information should be denied because, while the provisional
dismissal had already become permanent, the prescriptive period for filing the murder
charge had not prescribed. There was no double jeopardy because the first case was
dismissed before the accused had pleaded to the charge. (Sec. 7, Rule 117, ROC, as
amended)

13. What ground can be raised in the petition for certiorari? (1%)

Under Section 1 of Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, the writ of certiorari lies if the following
requisites are present: (1) that it is directed against a tribunal board or officer exercising
judicial functions; (2) that such tribunal board or officer has acted without or in excess of
jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion, and (3) that there is no appeal nor any
plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.

d) What is a question of law? (1%)

A question of law is when the doubt or difference arises as to what the law is on a certain
set of facts

6) What is a question of fact? (1%)

Question of fact is when the doubt or difference arises as to the truth or falsehood of
alleged facts.

What is the rule in case of division of the opinion of the Supreme Court? (2%)

Define Pardon. (1%)

- Pardon is basically a decision of the government to absolve a person of guilt for

an alleged crime or other legal offense. It has the effect of extinguishing the
criminal liability of an offender. It has two classifications – absolute pardon and
conditional pardon.

Define Parole. (1%)

- Parole also leads to the partial extinguishment of criminal liability. It is the
suspension of the sentence of a convict after serving the minimum term of the
indeterminate penalty, without granting a pardon, prescribing the term upon
which the sentence shall be suspended.
-
9i) Define Amnesty. (1%)
- Extinction of Criminal Liability. Amnesty under this Proclamation shall extinguish
any criminal liability for acts committed in pursuit of political beliefs, without
prejudice to the grantee’s civil liability for injuries or damages caused to private
persons.
-
- Restoration of Civil or Political Rights. The grant of amnesty shall restore the
grantee’s civil and political rights lost or suspended by virtue of conviction for
crime/s covered thereby.

Define Probation:
- probation is a disposition under which a defendant, after conviction and sentence,
is released subject to condition imposed by the court and to the supervision of a
probation officer. Probation leads to partial extinguishment of criminal liability.
-
14. Draw a simple Criminal Procedure Flowchart, (10%)
—--

What are the means by which criminal liability is partially extinguished?

1. Conditional pardon 2. Commutation of sentence 3. For good conduct, allowances

which the culprit may earn while he is serving his sentence
—-
What are the means by which criminal liability is partially extinguished?
1. Conditional pardon 2. Commutation of sentence 3. For good conduct, allowances
which the culprit may earn while he is serving his sentence

—
How is criminal liability extinguished? Under Article 89 of the RPC, criminal liability is
extinguished by:

1. death of the convict, and as to pecuniary penalties, liability therefor is extinguished

only when the death of the offender occurs before final judgment; 2. service of sentence;
3. amnesty; 4. absolute pardon; 5. prescription of the crime; 6. prescription of the
penalty; 7. marriage of the offended woman,

—
After a complaint for a private crime has been filed in court, what is the effect of pardon
by the offended party?

The pardon by the offended party will not have any effect on the prosecution of the
offense. Once a complaint has been filed in court, jurisdiction over the offense will be
acquired and will continue to be exercised by the court until termination of the case.