SUGGESTED ANSWERS TO BAR EXAMINATION QUESTIONS IN
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
(FROM YEAR 2011-2018)
In Partial Fulfillment
For the Course Law 409
(Remedial Law Review II)
nd
2 Semester, A.Y. 2019-2020
Submitted to
JUDGE JAMEL T. MAMUTUK
Professor, COLLEGE OF LAW
Mindanao State University
Marawi City
Submitted by
ALAWI, JOHANISAH D.
March 20, 2020
RULE 119 (TRIAL)
1.
At the Public Attorney's Office station in Taguig where you are assigned, your work
requires you to act as public defender at the local Regional Trial Court and to
handle cases involving indigents. Still in another case, this time for illegal
possession of dangerous drugs, the prosecution has rested but you saw from the
records that the illegal substance allegedly involved has not been identified by any
of the prosecution witnesses nor has it been the subject of any stipulation. Should
you now proceed posthaste to the presentation of defense evidence or consider
some other remedy? Explain the remedial steps you propose to undertake. (2013
BQ)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No. I will not proceed with the presentation of defense evidence. I will first file a
motion for leave to file demurrer to evidence within five (5) days from the time
the prosecution has rested its case. If the Motion is granted, I will file a demurrer
to evidence within a non-extendible period of ten (10) days from notice on the
ground of insufficiency of evidence. In the alternative, I may immediately file a
demurrer to evidence without leave of court (Section 23, Rule 119, Rules of
Criminal Procedure). In People v. De Guzman, GR No, 186498, March 26, 2010, the
Supreme Court held that in a prosecution for violation of the Dangerous Drugs
Act, the existence of the dangerous drug is a condition sine qua non for
conviction. The dangerous drug is the very corpus delicti of the crime. Similarly, in
People v. Sitco, GR No. 178202, May 14, 2010, the High Court held that in
prosecutions involving narcotics and other illegal substances, the substance itself
constitutes part of the corpus delicti of the offense and the fact of its existence is
vital to sustain a judgment of conviction beyond reasonable doubt.
2.
You are the defense counsel of Angela Bituin who has been charged under RA
3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act) before the Sandiganbayan. While
Angela has posted bail, she has yet to be arraigned. Angela revealed to you that
she has not been investigated for any offense and that it was only when police
officers showed up at her residence with a warrant of arrest that she learned of
the pending case against her. She wonders why she has been charged before the
Sandiganbayan when she is not in government service. What "during-trial" remedy
can you use to allow an early evaluation of the prosecution evidence without the
need of presenting defense evidence; when and how can you avail of this remedy?
(2013 BQ)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
I will file a Motion for Leave to file a Demurrer to Evidence within five (5) days
from the time the prosecution has rested its case. If the motion is granted, I will
file a demurrer to evidence within a nonextendible period of ten (10) days from
notice.
However, if the motion for leave to file demurrer to evidence is denied, I can
adduce evidence for the accused during trial to meet squarely the reasons for its
denial (Section 23, Rule 119, Rules of Criminal Procedure). This remedy would
allow the early evaluation of the sufficiency of prosecution’s evidence without the
need of presenting defense evidence. It may be done through the court’s initiative
or upon motion of the accused and after the prosecution rested its case.
3.
Don Deles, a contractor, was sued together with Mayor Dante Dungo and
Congressman Dal Dilim for malversation of public funds before the Office of the
Ombudsman. Danny Din, a material witness of the complainant Diego Domingo,
was hired as an engineer by a construction company in Qatar and had to depart in
two (2) months. To perpetuate Danny Din’s testimony, Diego Domingo applied for
his conditional examination before the Sandiganbayan. Should the application for
conditional examination of Danny Din be granted? (2018 BQ)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The application for conditional examination of Danny Din should not be granted.
The case is still under investigation before the Office of the Ombudsman. There is
no trial of the case before the Sandiganbayan, yet. Rule 119, Section 15 of the
Rules of Court on the conditional examination of the witness of the Prosecution is
made before the court where the case is pending.
Rule 119, Section 12 of the Rules of Court state that a conditional examination of
witnesses for the prosecution may be applied for when a person has been held to
answer for an offense. In addition to this requirement, the applicant must show
that: (a) the witness is sick or infirm to appear at the trial as directed by the order
of the court; (b) or has to leave the Philippines with no definite date of returning
thereto, he may forthwith be conditionally examined before the judge or the court
where the case in pending.
RULE 120 (JUDGMENT)
1.
Ludong, Balatong, and Labong were charged with murder. After trial, the court
announced that the case was considered submitted for decision. Subsequently, the
Clerk of Court issued the notices of promulgation of judgment which were duly
received. On promulgation day, Ludong and his lawyer appeared. The lawyers of
Balatong and Labong appeared but without their clients and failed to satisfactorily
explain their absence when queried by the court. Thus, the judge ordered the
Clerk of Court to proceed with the reading of the judgment convicting all the
accused. With respect to Balatong and Labong, the judge ordered that the
judgment be entered in the criminal docket and copies be furnished their lawyers.
The lawyers of Ludong, Balatong, and Labong filed within the reglementary period
a Joint Motion for Reconsideration. The court favorably granted the motion of
Ludong downgrading his conviction from murder to homicide but denied the
motion as regards Balatong and Labong. Was the court correct in taking
cognizance of the Joint Motion for Reconsideration? (2014 BQ)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The Court is not correct in taking cognizance of the Joint Motion for
Reconsideration. Section 6, Rule 120 of the Rules of Court provides that if the
judgment is for conviction and the failure of the accused to appear was without
justifiable cause, he shall lose the remedies available against the judgment and the
court shall order his arrest. Henceforth, the Court erred when it entertained the
joint Motion for Reconsideration with respect to accused Balatong and Labong
who were not present during the promulgation of the judgment. The Court should
have merely considered the joint motion as a motion for reconsideration that was
solely filed by Ludong. (People v. De Grano, G.R. No. 167710, [June 5, 20091).
2.
McJolly is a trouble-maker of sorts, always getting into brushes with the law. In
one incident, he drove his Humvee recklessly, hitting a pedicab which sent its
driver and passengers in different directions. The pedicab driver died, while two
(2) of the
passengers suffered slight physical injuries. Two (2) Informations were then filed
against McJolly. One, for Reckless Imprudence Resulting in Homicide and Damage
to Property, and two, for Reckless Imprudence Resulting in Slight Physical Injuries.
The latter case was scheduled for arraignment earlier, on which occasion McJolly
immediately pleaded guilty. He was meted out the penalty of public censure. A
month later, the case for reckless imprudence resulting in homicide was also set
for arraignment. Instead of pleading, McJolly interposed the defense of double
jeopardy. Resolve. (2014 BQ)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Mcjolly correctly interposed the defense of double jeopardy. Reckless imprudence
under Article 365 is a single quasi-offense by itself and not merely a means to
commit other crimes, such that conviction or acquittal of such quasioffense
already bars subsequent prosecution for the same quasi-offense, regardless of its
various resulting acts. (Ivler v. Hon. Modesto-San Pedro, G.R. No. 172716,
[November 17, 2010]). Hence, the conviction of Mcjolly for Reckless Imprudence
resulting to Slight Physical Injuries bars hissubsequent prosecution for Reckless
Imprudence resulting to Homicide and Damage to Property.
3.
Juancho entered a plea of guilty when he was arraigned under an information for
homicide. To determine the penalty to be imposed, the trial court allowed Juancho
to present evidence proving any mitigating circumstance in his favor. Juancho was
able to establish complete self-defense. Convinced by the evidence adduced by
Juancho, the trial court rendered a verdict of acquittal. May the Prosecution assail
the acquittal without infringing the constitutional guarantee against double
jeopardy in favor of Juancho? Explain your answer. (2017 BQ)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes, the prosecution may assail Juancho’s acquittal without violating his right
against double jeopardy. In the similar case of People v. Balicasan (G.R. No
L-26376, August 31, 1966), the Supreme Court held that if an accused who first
entered a plea of guilty was later on allowed to prove any mitigating
circumstance, his prior
plea is deemed vacated. The court should require him to plead anew on the
charge, or at least direct that a new plea of not guilty be entered for him. Thus in
this case, since Juancho was allowed to present evidence to prove mitigating
circumstances in his favor, there can be no double jeopardy with respect to the
prosecution’s appeal. Furthermore, the Supreme Court ruled in the Balicasan case
that a plea of guilty is an unconditional admission of guilt with respect to the
offense charged. It forecloses the right to defend oneself from said charge and
leaves the court with no alternative but to impose the penalty fixed by law under
the circumstances. Since Juancho was only allowed to testify in order to establish
mitigating circumstances for the purposes of fixing the penalty, his testimony,
thus, could not be taken as a trial on the merits to determine his guilt or
innocence. Juancho’s acquittal is therefore void considering that the prosecution
was not afforded an opportunity to present its evidence or even to rebut the
testimony of the defendant.
RULE 122 (APPEAL)
1.
Ludong, Balatong, and Labong were charged with murder. After trial, the court
announced that the case was considered submitted for decision. Subsequently,
the Clerk of Court issued the notices of promulgation of judgment which were
duly received. On promulgation day, Ludong and his lawyer appeared. The lawyers
of Balatong and Labong appeared but without their clients and failed to
satisfactorily explain their absence when queried by the court. Thus, the judge
ordered the Clerk of Court to proceed with the reading of the judgment
convicting all the accused. With respect to Balatong and Labong, the judge
ordered that the judgment be entered in the criminal docket and copies be
furnished their lawyers. The lawyers of Ludong, Balatong, and Labong filed within
the reglementary period a Joint Motion for Reconsideration. The court favorably
granted the motion of Ludong downgrading his conviction from murder to
homicide but denied the motion as
regards Balatong and Labong. Can Balatong and Labong appeal their conviction in
case Ludong accepts his conviction for homicide? (2014 BQ)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, Balatong and Ludong cannot appeal their conviction because they lost their
right to appeal from the judgment when they failed to appear during the
promulgation of judgment. Be that as it may, if they surrendered and filed a
Motion for Leave to avail of their post judgment remedies within fifteen (15) days
from promulgation of judgment, and they have proven that their absence at the
scheduled promulgation was for a justifiable cause, they may be allowed to avail
of said remedies within Fifteen (15) days from notice thereof. (People v. De Grano,
G.R. No. 167710, [June 5, 2009]).
2.
In a buy-bust operation, 30 kilos of shabu were seized from Dave and Daryll. They
were arrested and placed on inquest before Prosecutor Danilo Doon who ordered
their continued detention. Thereafter, the information for the sale and distribution
of shabu was filed in court. When arraigned, Dave and Daryll pleaded not guilty to
the charge. During pre-trial, counsel for both of the accused raised, for the first
time, the illegality of the arrest. The case proceeded to trial. After trial, the court
scheduled the promulgation of judgment with notice to both the accused and
their counsel, Atty. Dimayuga. During the promulgation, only Dave and Atty.
Dimayuga were present. Both the accused were convicted of the crime charged.
What is the remedy available to Daryll, if any, to be able to file an appeal? (2018
BQ)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
In this case, Dave and Daryll questioned the legality of their arrest only during pre
trial, after they were arraigned; hence, the challenge to the validity of the arrest
was not timely raised.
To be able to file an appeal, Daryll should: (a) surrender, and (b) file a motion for
leave of court to file an appeal, stating therein the reasons for his absence during
the promulgation, within 15 days from the date of promulgation of judgment.
As a rule, the accused who fails to appear at the promulgation of the judgment of
conviction shall lose the remedies available under the Rules of Court against the
judgment, such as the filing of: (a) a motion for new trial or reconsideration; or (b)
an appeal from the judgment of conviction. The Rules of Court, however, allow the
accused to regain his standing in court to avail of these remedies by: (a) his
surrender; and (b) his filing of a motion for leave of court to avail of these
remedies, stating therein the reasons for his absence within 15 days from the date
of promulgation of judgment (Villena v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 184091,
31 January 2011).
RULE 126 (SEARCH AND SEIZURE)
1.
A PDEA asset/informant tipped the PDEA Director Shabunot that a shabu
laboratory was operating in a house at Sta. Cruz, Laguna, rented by two (2)
Chinese nationals, Ho Pia and Sio Pao. PDEA Director Shabunot wants to apply for
a search warrant, but he is worried that if he applies for a search warrant in any
Laguna court, their plan might leak out.
a) Where can he file an application for search warrant?
b) What documents should he prepare in his application for search warrant? c)
Describe the procedure that should be taken by the judge on the application.
Suppose the judge issues the search warrant worded in this way:
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,
Plaintiff
-versus
Ho Pia and Sio Pao,
Accused.
Crim. Case No. 007 for: Violation of R.A. 9165
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
TO ANY PEACE OFFICER
Greetings:
It appearing to the satisfaction of the undersigned after examining under oath
PDEA Director Shabunot that there is probable cause to believe that violations of
Section 18 and 16 of R.A. 9165 have been committed and that there are good and
sufficient reasons to believe that Ho Pia and Sio Pao have in their possession or
control, in a two (2) door apartment with an iron gate located at Jupiter St., Sta.
Cruz, Laguna, undetermined amount of "shabu" and drug manufacturing
implements and paraphernalia which should be seized and brought to the
undersigned, You are hereby commanded to make an immediate search, at any
time in the day or night, of the premises above described and forthwith seize and
take possession of the abovementioned personal property, and bring said property
to the undersigned to be dealt with as the law directs.
Witness my hand this 1st day of March, 2012.
(signed)
Judge XYZ
d) Cite/enumerate the defects, if any, of the search warrant.
e) Suppose the search warrant was served on March 15, 2012 and the search
yielded the described contraband and a case was filed against the accused
in RTC, Sta. Cruz, Laguna and you are the lawyer of Sio Pao and Ho Pia,
what will you do?
f) Suppose an unlicensed armalite was found in plain view by the searchers and
the warrant was ordered quashed, should the court order the return of the
same to the Chinese nationals? Explain your answer.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
a) PDEA Director Shabunot may file an application for search warrant in any
court within the judicial region where the crime was committed. (Rule 126,
Sec. 2 (b)).
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
PDEA Director Shabunot may file an application for search warrant before
the Executive Judge and Vice Executive Judges of the Regional Trial Courts of
Manila or Quezon Cities. (A.M. No. 99-10-09-SC, January 25, 2000).
b) He should prepare a petition for issuance of a search warrant and attach
therein sworn statements and affidavits.
c) The judge must, before issuing the warrant, examine personally in the form
of searching questions and answers, in writing and under oath, the
complainant and the witnesses he may produce on facts personally known
to them and attach to the record their sworn statements, together with the
affidavits submitted. (Rule 126, Sec. 5, Rules of Court). If the judge is
satisfied of the existence of facts upon which the application is based or
that there is probable cause to believe that they exist, he shall issue the
warrant, which must be substantially in the form prescribed by the Rules.
(Rule 126, Sec. 6, Rules of Court).
d) 1. The search warrant failed to particularly describe the place to be searched
and the things to be seized (Rule 126, Sec. 4, Rules of Court);
2. The search warrant commanded the immediate search, at any time in
the day or night. The general rule is that a search warrant must be served in
the day time (Rule 126, Sec. 8, Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure), or
that portion of the twenty-four hours in which a man’s person and
countenance are distinguishable (17 C.J. 1134). By way of exception, a
search warrant may be made at night when it is positively asserted in the
affidavit that the property is on the person or in the place ordered to be
searched (Alvares vs. CFI of Tayabas, 64 Phil. 33). There is no showing that
the exception applies.
e) If I were the lawyer of Sio Pao and Ho Pia, I would file a Motion to Quash the
search warrant for having been served beyond its period of validity. (Rule
126, Sec. 14, Rules of Court). A search warrant shall be valid only ten (10)
days from its date. Thereafter, it shall be void. (Rule 126, Sec. 10, Revised
Rules of Court). f. No, the Court should not order the return of the
unlicensed armalite because it is contraband or illegal per se. (PDEA vs.
Brodett, G.R. No. 196390, September 28, 2011). The possession of an
unlicensed armalite found in plain view is mala prohibita. The same should
be kept in custodia legis.
2.
A search warrant was issued for the purpose of looking for unlicensed firearms in
the house of Ass-asin, a notorious gun for hire. When the police served the
warrant, they also sought the assistance of barangay tanods who were assigned to
look at other portions of the premises around the house. In a nipa hut thirty (30)
meters away from the house of Ass-asin, a Barangay tanod came upon a kilo of
marijuana that was wrapped in newsprint. He took it and this was later used by
the authorities to charge Ass-asin with illegal possession of marijuana. Ass-asin
objected to the introduction of such evidence claiming that it was illegally seized.
Is the objection of Ass-asin valid? (2014 BQ)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The objection is valid. The search warrant specifically designates or describes the
house of the as the place to be searched. Incidentally, the marijuana was seized by
Barangay Tanods thirty (30) meters away from the house of the accused. Since the
confiscated items were found in a place other than the one described in the
search warrant, it can be considered as fruits of an invalid warrantless search, the
presentation of which as an evidence is a violation of petitioner's constitutional
guaranty against unreasonable searches and seizure. (Ruben Del Castillo v. People
of the Philippines, G.R. No. 185128, [January 30, 2012]). Besides, the search is also
illegal because the marijuana confiscated in the nipa hut was wrapped in a
newsprint. Therefore, the same cannot be considered validly seized in plain view.
(Abraham Miclat v. People of the Philippines, [G.R. No. 176077, August 31, 2011]).
3.
Atty. Dalmacio, the Director of the National Bureau of Investigation, applied for a
search warrant before the Executive Judge of RTC Manila. He alleged in his
application that a certain alias Django was keeping about 10 kilos of shabu in a
wooden cabinet located at Dillian’s Store in Paseo de Sta. Rosa, Laguna. The
Executive Judge of Manila personally examined Atty. Dalmacio and his witnesses
and thereafter issued the search warrant particularly describing the place to be
searched and the items to be seized.
a) Can the search warrant issued by the Executive Judge of Manila be enforced
in Laguna?
b) Can the legal concept of “venue is jurisdictional” be validly raised in
applications for search warrants? (2018 BQ)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
a) Yes, the search warrant issued by the Executive Judge of Manila may be
enforced in Laguna. Administrative No. 99-20-09 of the Supreme Court
states all applications for search warrant personally endorsed by the head
of the Philippine National Police (PNP), the National Bureau of Investigation
(NBI), The Presidential Anti-Organized Crime Task Force (PAOC-TF) and the
Reaction Against Crime Task Force (REACT-TF) with The Executive Judge and
Vice Executive Judges of Regional Trial Courts, Manila and Quezon City, may
be served in places outside the territorial jurisdiction of said courts.
In the case at bar, the application for the issuance of search warrant was
filed by the Director of the National Bureau of the National Bureau of
Investigation (NBI) before the Executive Judge of Manila; hence, the search
warrant may be enforced outside the territorial jurisdiction of Manila.
b) No, the legal concept of venue being jurisdictional is not applicable. The
Supreme Court in Malaloan v. Court of Appeals, (G.R. No. 104879, 6 May
1994), states that an application for a search warrant is a special criminal
process, rather than a criminal action; hence, the legal concept of venue
being jurisdictional is not applicable in the case at bar.