Remedial Law Bar

1. Distinguish jurisdiction over subject matter from jurisdiction over person of the accused: Jose,
Alberto and Romeo were charged with murder. Upon filing of the information, the RTC judge issued the
warrants for their arrest. Learning of the issuance of the warrants, the three accused jointly filed a motion
for reinvestigation and for the recall of the warrants of arrest. On the date set for hearing of their motion,
none of the accused showed up in court for fear of being arrested. The RTC judge denied their motion
because the RTC did not acquire jurisdiction over the persons of the movants. Did the RTC rule correctly?

2. Your friend YY, an orphan, 16years old, seeks your legal advice. She tells you that ZZ, her
uncle, subjected her to acts of lasciviousness; that when she told her grandparents, they told her to just keep
quiet and not to file charges against ZZ, their son. Feeling very much aggrieved, she asks you how her uncle
ZZ can be made to answer for his crime.

(a)  What would your advice be? Explain.


(b)  Suppose the crime committed against YY by her uncle ZZ is rape, witnessed by your
mutual friend XX. But this time, YY was prevailed upon by her grandparents not to file
charges. XX asks you if she can initiate the complaint against ZZ. Would your answer be the
same? Explain.

3. Pedrito and Tomas, Mayor and Treasurer, respectively, of the Municipality of San Miguel,
Leyte, are charged before the Sandiganbayan for violation of Section 3 (e), Republic Act No. 3019 (Anti-
Graft and Corrupt Practices Act). The information alleges, among others, that the two conspired in the
purchase of several units of computer through personal canvass instead of a public bidding, causing undue
injury to the municipality. Before arraignment, the accused moved for reinvestigation of the charge, which
the court granted. After reinvestigation, the Office of the Special Prosecutor filed an amended information
duly signed and approved by the Special Prosecutor, alleging the same delictual facts, but with an additional
allegation that the accused gave unwarranted benefits to SB Enterprises owned by Samuel. Samuel was also
indicted under the amended information. Before Samuel was arraigned, he moved to quash the amended
information on the ground that the officer who filed the same had no authority to do so. Resolve the motion
to quash with reasons.

4. A. D and E were charged with homicide in one information. Before they could be arraigned,
the prosecution moved to amend the information to exclude E therefrom. Can the court grant
the motion to amend? Why?

B. On the facts above stated, suppose the prosecution, instead of filing a motion to amend,
moved to withdraw the information altogether and its motion was granted. Can the
prosecution re- file the information although this time for murder? Explain.

C. If an information was filed in the RTC-Manila charging D with homicide and he was
arrested in Quezon City, in what court or courts may he apply for bail? Explain.

D. D was charged with theft of an article worth P15,000.00. Upon being arraigned, he
pleaded not guilty to the offense charged. Thereafter, before trial commenced, he asked the
court to allow him to change his plea of not guilty to a plea of guilty but only to estafa
involving P5,000.00. Can the court allow D to change his plea? Why?

5. Rule on implied institution of civil action with criminal action. While cruising on a highway, a
taxicab driven by Mans hit an electric post. As a result thereof, its passenger, Jovy, suffered serious injuries.
Mans was subsequently charged before the Municipal Trial Court with reckless imprudence resulting in
serious physical injuries. Thereafter. Jovy filed a civil action against Lourdes, the owner of the taxicab, for
breach of contract, and Mans for quasi-delict. Lourdes and Mans filed a motion to dismiss the civil action on
the ground of litis pendentia, that is, the pendency of the civil action impliedly instituted in the criminal
action for reckless imprudence resulting in serious physical injuries. Resolve the motion with reasons.

6. Donald was convicted of serious physical injuries inflicted on his house help Paula. He
appealed but died during the pendency of his appeal.

(a) What is the effect of the death of Donald on his criminal liability? Explain. 


(b) What is the effect of his death on his civil liability based solely on his criminal act?
Explain.

(c)What is the effect of his death on his civil liability based on a quasi-delict or tort? Explain.

(d) What is the effect of his death if in the criminal case Paula did not make the necessary
reservation to file a separate civil action for damages? Explain.

(e)What is the effect of his death if Paula reserved her right to file a separate civil action but
had not yet done so when Donald died? Explain.

7. What is a prejudicial question?

8. Name two instances where the trial court can hold the accused civilly liable even if he is
acquitted.

9. Governor Pedro Mario of Tarlac was charged with indirect bribery before the
Sandiganbayan for accepting a car in exchange of the award of a series of contracts for medical supplies.
The Sandiganbayan, after going over the information, found the same to be valid and ordered the
suspension of Mario. The latter contested the suspension claiming that under the law (Sec. 13 of R.A. 3019)
his suspension is not automatic upon the filing of the information and his suspension under Sec. 13, R.A.
3019 is in conflict with Sec. 5 of the Decentralization Act of 1967 (R.A. 5185). The Sandiganbayan
overruled Mario's contention stating that Mario's suspension under the circumstances is mandatory. Is the
court's ruling correct? Why?

10. PG was arrested without a warrant by policemen while he was walking in a busy street. After
preliminary Investigation, he was charged with rape and the corresponding information was filed In the
Regional Trial Court. On arraignment, he pleaded not guilty. Trial on the merits ensued. The court
rendered Judgment convicting him. On appeal, FG claims that the judgment is void because he was illegally
arrested. If you were the Solicitor General, counsel for the People of the Philippines, how would you refute
said claim?

11. D was charged with slight physical injuries in the MTC. He pleaded not guilty and went to
trial. After the prosecution had presented its evidence, the trial court set the continuation of the hearing on
another date. On the date scheduled for hearing, the prosecutor failed to appear, whereupon the court, on
motion of D, dismissed the case. A few minutes later, the prosecutor arrived and opposed the dismissal of the
case. The court reconsidered its order and directed D to present his evidence. Before the next date of trial
came, however, D moved that the last order be set aside on the ground that the reinstatement of the case had
placed him twice in jeopardy. Acceding to this motion, the court again dismissed the case. The prosecutor
then filed an information in the RTC, charging D with direct assault based on the same facts alleged in the
information for slight physical injuries but with the added allegation that D inflicted the injuries out of
resentment for what the complainant had done in the performance of his duties as chairman of the board of
election inspectors. D moved to quash the second information on the ground that its filing had placed him in
double jeopardy. How should D's motion to quash be resolved?
12. BC is charged with illegal possession of firearms under an Information signed by a Provincial
Prosecutor. After arraignment but before pre-trial, BC 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, BC 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 BC did not move to quash the Information before arraignment. If you are counsel
for BC. What is your argument to refute the opposition of the Provincial Prosecutor?

13. Enumerate the requisites of a "trial in absentia" (2%) and a promulgation of judgment in
absentia"

14. After the prosecution had rested and made its formal offer of evidence, with the court
admitting all of the prosecution evidence, the accused filed a demurrer to evidence with leave of court. The
prosecution was allowed to comment thereon. Thereafter, the court granted the demurrer, finding that the
accused could not have committed the offense charged. If the prosecution files a motion for reconsideration
on the ground that the court order granting the demurrer was not in accord with the law and jurisprudence,
will the motion prosper? Explain your answer.

15. The accused was duly notified of the date set for the promulgation of the decision in the case
filed against him. The accused failed to appear but his counsel was present. The judge ordered the
cancellation of the bail bond posted by the accused and issued a warrant for his arrest. The judge further
ordered that the promulgation of the decision be held' in abeyance until the accused is taken into custody.
Was the action taken by the judge proper? Explain fully.

16. After receiving the adverse decision rendered against his client, the defendant; Atty. Sikat duly
filed a notice of appeal. For his part, the plaintiff timely filed a motion for partial new trial to seek an
increase in the monetary damages awarded. The RTC instead rendered an amended decision further
reducing the monetary awards. Is it necessary for Atty. Sikat to file a second notice of appeal after receiving
the amended decision?

17. Police operatives of the Western Police District, Philippine National Police, applied for a
search warrant in the Regional Trial Court for the search of the house of Juan Santos and the seizure of an
undetermined amount of shabu. The team arrived at the house of Santos but failed to find him there.
Instead, the team found Roberto Co. The team conducted a search in the house of Santos in the presence of
Roberto Co and barangay officials and found ten (10) grams of shabu. Roberto Co was charged in court
with illegal possession of ten grams of shabu. Before his arraignment, Roberto Co filed a motion to quash
the search warrant on the following grounds: (a) he was not the accused named in the search warrant; and (b)
the warrant does not describe the article to be seized with sufficient particularity. Resolve the motion with
reasons.

18. The search warrant authorized the seizure of “undetermined quantity of shabu.” During the
service of the search warrant, the raiding team also recovered a kilo of dried marijuana leaves wrapped in
newsprint. The accused moved to suppress the marijuana leaves as evidence for the violation of Section 11
of the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002 since they were not covered by the search warrant.
The State justified the seizure of the marijuana leaves under the “plain view” doctrine. There was no
indication of whether the marijuana leaves were discovered and seized before or after the seizure of the
shabu. If you are the judge, how would you rule on the motion to suppress?

19. What are the requirements in order that an admission of guilt of an accused during a
custodial investigation be admitted in evidence?

20. Is pre-trial mandatory in all trial courts? Explain. (1989 Bar Question)