Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Bar Questions and Answers in Criminal Procedure 2003
Bar Questions and Answers in Criminal Procedure 2003
.
In an action for violation of Batas Pambansa Big. 22, the court granted the
accuseds demurrer to evidence which he filed without leave of court. Although
he was acquitted of the crime charged, he, however, was required by the court
to pay the private complainant the face value of the check. The accused filed a
Motion of Reconsideration regarding the order to pay the face value of the check
on the following grounds: a) the demurrer to evidence applied only too the
criminal aspect of the case; and b) at the very least, he was entitled to adduce
controverting evidence on the civil liability. Resolve the Motion for
Reconsideration. (6%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
(a) The Motion for Reconsideration should be denied. The ground that the
demurrer to evidence applied only to the criminal aspect of the case was not
correct because the criminal action for violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22
included the corresponding civil action. (Sec.1(b) of Rule 111).
(b) The accused was not entitled to adduce controverting evidence on the civil
liability,
Because he filed his demurrer to evidence without leave of court. (Sec. 23 of
Rule 119).
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
(a) Yes, the seizure of the firearm was valid because it was seized in the course
of a valid arrest in a buy-bust operation. (Sec. 12 and 13 of Rule 126) A search
warrant was not necessary. (People v. Salazar, 266 SCRA 607 [1997]).
(b) The denial of the motion to dismiss was not proper. The court had no
authority to issue the writ of replevin whether the firearm was in custodia legis
1 | Page
or not. The motion to recover the firearm should be filed in the court where the
criminal action is pending.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
As a general rule, when a criminal case is dismissed on nolle prosequi before the
accused is placed on trial and before he is called on to plead, this is not
equivalent to an acquittal and does not bar a subsequent prosecution for the
same offense. (Galvez v. Court of Appeals, 237 SCRA 685 [1994]).
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
(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 of Rule 117).
(b) The motion to quash the information should be denied because, while the
provisional dismissal had already become permanent, the prescriptive period for
2 | Page
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 of Rule 117).
a) Was there a legal basis for the court to deny the motion?
b) If you were the counsel for the accused, what remedies, if any, would you
pursue?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
(a) Yes, there is a legal basis for the court to deny the motion to quash the
warrant of arrest and to withdraw the information. The court is not bound by the
Resolution of the Secretary of Justice. (Crespo v. Mogul, 151 SCRA 462 [1987]).
(b) If I were the counsel for the accused, I would surrender the accused and
apply for bail because the offense is merely homicide, a non-capital offense. At
the pre-trial, I would make a
stipulation of facts with the prosecution which would show that no offense was
committed.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
In a complex crime, jurisdiction over the whole complex crime must be lodged
with the trial court having jurisdiction to impose the maximum and most serious
penalty imposable on an offense forming part of the complex crime. (Cuyos v.
Garcia, 160 SCRA 302 [1988]).
3 | Page