I. On December 14, 2019, the Court reversed the judgment of the Court of Appeals (CA) and
acquitted the accused, Andrew, Edward, and Charles, on the ground of lack of proof of their guilt
beyond reasonable doubt. On December 28, 2019, the complainant asked the court to reconsider
its decision, claiming that it “denied the prosecution due process of law; seriously misappreciated
the facts; unreasonably regarded the witness Anne as lacking credibility; issued a tainted and
erroneous decision; decided the case in a manner that resulted in the miscarriage of justice; or
committed grave abuse in its treatment of the evidence and prosecution witnesses. ”May a
judgment of acquittal be reconsidered? (10%)
II. Does the “fresh period” rule apply to appeals in criminal cases? Explain your answer. (5%)
III. In a rape case, the accused disputes the validity of the complaint for allegedly having grossly
violated his constitutional right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against
him because it failed to state the exact date or at least the approximate date when the alleged rape
was committed. Because of such omission, he argues that “he was not able to intelligently prepare
for his defense and persuasively refute the indictment against him.” Is the accused correct? (5%)
IV. An information for rape reads: “That on or about the month of April 5, 2019, in the
Municipality of Tagum, Province of Davao del Norte, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable
Court, XXX, did then and there willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously had carnal knowledge of
one AAA, a seven-year old girl, by means of force and against the latter’s will and consent. ”The
evidence showed that while the victim and other children were playing bahay-bahayan, the accused
summoned her to a house and while inside, the accused who was armed with a bolo, threatened to
cut her ears with his bolo. Thereafter, he undressed her, removed her panty, took off his own pants
and inserted his penis into her vagina several times. After consummating the act, the accused sent
her home with a warning not to report the incident to anyone. After the presentation of the evidence
of both parties, the case was submitted for decision and the court rendered a judgment convicting
the accused of qualified rape. Is the conviction proper? (5%)
V. Define and discuss briefly the following legal terms in criminal procedure:
a. General Warrants (2.5%)
b. Bail as a matter of right (2.5%)
c. Exclusionary principle (2.5%)
d. Bail as a matter of judicial discretion (2.5%)
e. Variance doctrine (2.5%)
f. Neypes Rule (2.5%)
VI. If an information was filed in the RTC Manila charging Mike with homicide and he was
arrested in Quezon City, in what court or courts may he apply for bail? Explain. (5%)
VII. Before arraignment in a graft case, the accused moved for the quashal of the information on
the ground that he was deprived of a full preliminary investigation. After hearing on the said
motion, the court dismissed the information. Is the action of the court proper? (5%)
VIII. When is a judgment considered final? (5%)
IX. What are the requisites of trial in absentia? (5%)
X. Distinguish demurrer to evidence in criminal cases and demurrer to evidence in civil cases.
(10%)
XI. The accused was charged with murder in the Municipal Trial Court of Tagum City. The case
was dismissed, upon motion of the Fiscal, due to the absence of an essential witness, and over the
objection of the accused. Later, the same information for murder was filed against the accused in
the Regional Trial Court of Tagum City, Davao del Norte. The accused moved to quash the new
information on the ground of double jeopardy, alleging that he was previously charged of the same
offense in the MTC of Tagum City, and it was dismissed without his consent. Rule on the motion.
(5%)
XII. Is arraignment required before the court grants bail? (5%)
XIII. Anecita is charged in the Regional Trial Court Branch 30 of Tagum City for violation of Sec.
5 of R.A. 9165. Anecita applied for plea bargaining with the prosecution to Section 12 of R.A.
9165 to which the prosecution gave its consent. When the motion for the approval of the plea
bargaining agreement is filed in court, the RTC Branch 30 of Tagum City denied the motion.
Anecita argued that the court should have granted the motion considering that the consent of the
prosecutor was already given.
a. Is Anecita correct? (5%)
b. Let us assume that the prosecution objected to the plea bargaining proposal, but despite such
objection, the RTC Branch 30 of Tagum City approved the motion to plea bargain on the ground
that it was prescribed under the guidelines set forth by the Supreme Court, is the court correct?(5%)
XIV. Enumerate the grounds for a motion to quash. (5%)
XV. Josh is charged with illegal possession of firearms under an Information signed by the
Provincial Prosecutor. After arraignment but before pre-trial, he found out that the Provincial
Prosecutor had no authority to sign and file the Information as it was the City Prosecutor who has
such authority. During the pre-trial, Josh moves that the case against him be dismissed on the
ground that the information is defective because the officer signing it lacked the authority to do
so. The Provincial prosecutor opposes the motion on the ground of estoppel as Josh did not move
to quash the Information before arraignment. If you are the counsel of Josh, what is your argument
to refute the opposition of the Provincial prosecutor? (5%)