Magdi Lim

2021 Finals
Multiple Choice. Choose the correct answer. (2% each)
1. A witness for the prosecution was asked on cross examination questions on

matters which he did not mention in the direct examination. The questions
are:
A. objectionable because of the inherent irrelevancy of the questions.
B. objectionable because of the inherent unfairness of the questions.
C. proper, if the questions tend to test the truthfulness and freedom from interest of
the witness.
D. proper, if the witness is also the accused.
2. The accused’s right against double jeopardy cannot be invoked when the
A. prosecution appeals from a judgment of conviction in the same case.
B. charge against the accused was dismissed before arraignment.
C. accused is charged with the same offense in two separate pending cases.
D. accused is prosecuted anew for the same offense after he has been convicted or
acquitted from such offense.
3. The following statements regarding the application of the rule on statement

of decedent or person of unsound mind are true except
A. The defendant in the case is the executor or administrator or representative of the
deceased.
B. The suit is upon a claim by the plaintiff against the estate of such deceased
person.
C. The subject of the testimony is as to any matter occurring after the death of such
deceased person.
D. The statement of the deceased was made upon the personal knowledge of the
deceased at a time when the matter had been recently perceived by him.
4. Evidence of a previous conduct or similar acts at one time is not admissible

to prove that one did or did not do the same act at another time.
A. Res gestae
B. Independently relevant statement
C. Propensity rule
D. Admission by a conspirator
5. Which of the following is a true statement as regards DNA testing:

A. The order granting DNA testing is appealable.
B. The result of DNA testing is automatically admitted as evidence in the court in
which it was sought for.
C. The DNA profile of a person is open to public scrutiny
D. A court order is not always required before undertaking DNA testing.
6. X, Y and Z robbed a bank. Two days after the robbery, X was arrested and he
immediately confessed to his participation in the robbery. In the process, he
implicated Y and Z in the course of his custodial investigation. Assuming the
requisites for a valid extrajudicial confession were followed, the statement
of X is:
A. admissible not only against him but also admissible against Y and Z if repeated as
testimony in court.
B. admissible only against him and inadmissible against Y and Z, even if repeated as
testimony in court.
C. inadmissible against him and against Y and Z under the rule of inter alios acta
D. not admissible for any purpose, such being extrajudicial statements.
7. In a suit for damages, the counsel for the plaintiff, in an effort to show bias
of the witness against the plaintiff on cross examination, asked the witness if
he has an unpaid loan in favor of the plaintiff. The witness:
A. may refuse to answer the question on self-incrimination grounds.
B. cannot be required to answer if the answer would tend to establish liability
against him.
C. must answer the question even if the answer would tend to show that he owes the
plaintiff.
D. cannot be required to answer because the question is irrelevant.
8. Which of the following statements is not procedurally sound?

A. In rape cases, the failure to specify the exact date or time when the rape was
committed does not make the information ipso facto defective on its face.
B. It is generally not necessary to state in the complaint or information the precise
date of the commission of the offense except when the date of commission is an
essential element of the offense.
C. The nature and character of the crime charged are primarily determined by the
designated offense in the complaint or information.
D. An accused is deemed to have waived objections to any formal defect or
insufficiency of the information if he voluntarily enters a plea and participates in
the trial.
9. When is bail a matter of right and when is it a matter of discretion? State

the rules on where the accused may file an application for bail. (4%)
Bail is a matter of right:

i) before conviction in the MTC;
ii) after conviction in the MTC;
iii) before conviction in the RTC of a crime which has a penalty less than
reclusion perpetua, life imprisonment, or death.
Bail is a matter of discretion when:
i) the crime charged has a penalty of reclusion perpetua, life imprisonment, or
death, and there will be a determination if the evidence of guilt is strong to
deny bail;
ii) Bail is also a matter of discretion when the RTC convicts the accused to a
crime wherein the penalty is less than reclusion perpetua, life imprisonment,
or death.
The rules on where the accused may file an application for bail are the following:
i) If bail is a matter of discretion, or the applicant seeks recognizance, bail must
only be applied in the court where the case is pending on trial or on appeal;
ii) If bail is not a matter of discretion or the applicant does not seek
recognizance, it may be filed with the court where the case is pending or if in
the absence of a judge, an RTC judge or if in the absence of an RTC judge, an
MTC judge;
iii) If a person is held/arrested in a place which is different from where the case is
pending, the person can apply with an RTC judge in that territory where he is
held. In the absence of the RTC judge, bail may be applied with the MTC
judge.
- MATTER OF RIGHT: before or after conviction in the MTC, before conviction

in the RTC if the penalty carried with it is less than reclusion perpetua, life
imprisonment or death.
- MATTER OF DISCRETION: before conviction in the RTC of a crime with a
penalty of reclusion perpetua, life imprisonment or death if evidence of guilt is
not strong, after conviction of a crime by the RTC which does not carry with it
penalty of reclusion perpatua, life imprisonment or death
- WHERE APPLIED—the general rule is that accused will file application for bail
in the court where the case is pending. However, if he was arrested in another
court other than where the case was pending, the accused can file an application
in the RTC with jurisdiction of where he was arrested. If the accused wants to file
a recognizance, then he may only do so in the court where the case is pending.
10. Under Rule 111, Sec. 2, regarding criminal action vis-à-vis separate civil
action, the procedure therein is characterized by four key words: deferment,
suspension, consolidation and tolling of prescriptive period. Explain.(5%)
Deferment means that the separate civil action cannot be instituted while the criminal case is
pending, until a final judgment is rendered in the criminal case.
Suspension means that when a separate civil action is instituted first, and a criminal action is
subsequently filed, the civil action will be suspended until a final judgment has been rendered in
the criminal action.
Consolidation means that when a separate civil action is instituted first, and a criminal action is
subsequently filed, the separate civil action may be consolidated via motion with the criminal
action before judgment on the merits.
Tolling of prescriptive period means that when a criminal action is filed and the separate civil
action is deferred or suspended, the prescriptive period of the civil action will be interrupted
until a final judgment has been rendered in the criminal action.
a. DEFERMENT—when a criminal case is initiated, the civil suit ex delicto will not
be decided upon until after the final entry and judgment of the criminal case
b. SUSPENSION—when a criminal case is filed after the institution of the civil
case, the civil case will be suspended at any stage before final judgment on the
merits
c. CONSOLIDATION— before judgment on the merits is rendered in a civil
action, the same may be consolidated in the court trying the criminal action.
d. TOLLING OF PRESCRIPTIVE PERIOD— when a criminal case has been
instituted, the prescriptive period of the civil case (which cannot be instituted
separately or the proceeding of which has been suspended) will be tolled.

11. Aga was stabbed in the abdomen. He immediately called for help and a
policeman promptly approached him. He told the policeman that he would
die from the stab wound inflicted on him by Baldo who has a grudge against
him. He was brought to the hospital for treatment where, on the same day,
he was shot and killed by an unknown assailant. Eventually, Baldo was
charged in court for the death of Aga. The prosecution had to build its case
on circumstantial evidence. At the trial, the policeman was presented to
testify on Aga’s declaration. The defense objected. However, the prosecution
argued that the evidence is admissible either as a dying declaration or as
part of the res gestae, and is relevant to the fact in issue, the guilt of Baldo
for the death of Aga. Is the prosecution correct? (5%)
The prosecution is partly wrong, and partly correct. The evidence is admissible for res gestae,
but it is not a dying declaration since the statement does not concern the circumstances that
brought about the death of Aga, since the facts show it was an unknown assailant who killed Aga
in the hospital. The statement would not prove the guilt of Baldo for the death of Aga, but it
would prove that Baldo committed another crime due to the injury caused by the stabbing
incident.
Under the Rules of Court, a dying declaration is admissible in evidence if it was done in
consciousness of an impending death, and the statement is related to the circumstances of the
death of the declarant. Also, res gestae states that a statement made immediately prior to, or
subsequent, or during a startling occurrence, made in a stress of excitement, is admissible as
part of res gestae.
In the facts shown, the statement of Aga to the policeman could not be a dying declaration
because the statement was not related to his death, as it is shown that an unknown assailant
caused the death. Baldo only caused the stab wound, not the death.
The statement is admissible as res gestae, since it was made right after a startling occurrence
occurred and it was made under a stress of excitement, when Aga told the policeman who
stabbed him. The statement would not prove the guilt of Baldo for the death of Aga, but it would
prove that Baldo committed another crime due to the injury caused by the stabbing incident.
The testimony of the police cannot be considered a dying declaration. To be exempted from
hearsay as dying declaration, the statement made by the declarant should be regarding the
circumstances of his death. In this case, Aga told the police officer of his stab wound however
said statement was not regarding circumstances of his death. Aga did not die because of the stab
wound. Rather, Aga died because of the gunshot of an unknown assailant.
However, the testimony of the police can be considered as part of res gestae. To be exempted
from hearsay as res gestae, the statement must have been said prior, during or after a startling
occurrence and that the declarant had no opportunity for premeditation. In this case, Aga made
the statement to the police after the latter promptly approached him. There was not much time
that lapsed between the occurrence and the declaration of the statement. The declaration, being
so intimately woven with the event of stabbing, can be considered as an exception under res
gestae.
12. Vico, Ric, Joey and Weng were convicted of murder by the RTC. Only Weng
personally appeared during the promulgation of judgment. Later, without
surrendering and explaining the reasons for their absence, Vico, Ric and
Joey joined Weng in filing a joint motion for reconsideration. The RTC took
cognizance of the joint motion for reconsideration and later issued an order
acquitting Vito and Ric and downgrading the conviction of Joey and Weng
from murder to homicide. The People filed a petition for certiorari with
the Court of Appeals to annul the order. Vico, Ric, Joey and Weng argued
that the petition would place them in double jeopardy. Is their argument
correct? (5%)
The argument is incorrect as to Vico, Ric, and Joey, but it is correct as to Weng.
Under the Rules of Court, if the accused does not personally appear in the promulgation of
judgment of a conviction, he loses all the remedies against the judgment, unless he files a
motion within 15 days from promulgation to explain the reason why he was absent.
In this case, Vico, Ric, and Joey did not personally appear in the promulgation of the judgment,
and did not file a motion within 15 days to explain their absence. Hence, they lose all their
remedies from the judgment of conviction. Therefore, it was erroneous for the RTC to take
cognizance of their motion for reconsideration, and acquitting Vito and Ric, while downgrading
the conviction of Joey. Such an order was a patent nullity and was done with grave abuse of
discretion and hence, such petition for certiorari with the CA is proper. Such void order does not
give rise to double jeopardy.
Furthermore, the double jeopardy rule applies when the prosecution “appeals” the decision. A
certiorari is an original action, and not an appeal. Thus, the double jeopardy argument does not
lie against Vico, Ric, and Joey.
However, such petition for certiorari is erroneous against Weng, since he personally appeared in
the promulgation of the judgment and is entitled to the downgrading of the conviction from
murder to homicide.
Thus, the argument of the prosecution is incorrect as to Vico, Ric, and Joey, but it is correct as to
Weng.
No, their argument is incorrect. As a general rule, the prosecution cannot question a judgment
of acquittal or conviction of the accused as such would place the latter under double jeopardy.
However, jurisprudence allows another recourse for the prosecution which is to file a petition
for certiorari under Rule 65 when there lack of due process or when there is a grave abuse of
discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of the court that made the
decision. Moreover, the Rules provide that those absent in the promulgation of judgment would
not be allowed to avail of remedies unless they file motion for leave of court and justify their
absence. In this case, there was an evident grave abuse of discretion as the court allowed Ric,
Joey and Vico to avail of remedies despite being absent in the promulgation of judgment and
despite the fact that the said parties did not proffer a justifiable excuse for their absence. The
parties will not be placed under double jeopardy because the effect of a Rule 65 petition is to
make the judgment void.
13. The barangay captain reported to the police that Rey was illegally keeping in
his house in the barangay an AK 47 rifle. Thus, the police conducted a search
of Rey’s house and found said rifle which they seized. They also brought Rey
to the police station. During the investigation, he voluntarily signed a Sworn
Statement that he was possessing said rifle without license or authority to
possess, and a Waiver of Right to Counsel. During Rey’s trial for illegal
possession of firearm, the prosecution submitted in evidence the rifle,
Sworn Statement and Waiver of Right to Counsel. Rule individually on the
admissibility of the:
A. Rifle
B. Sworn Statement
C. Waiver of Right to Counsel (5%)
All are inadmissible.

a. The rifle is inadmissible since it was a fruit of a poisonous tree, or the product of an
illegal search. The constitution and jurisprudence provides that a search must
generally be done with a warrant, subject to specified exceptions such as incidental to
a lawful arrest, checkpoint, customs, consented, or moving vehicle search. If it does
not fall under any of the exceptions, the search is illegal if done without a warrant. In
this case, the search was done without a warrant, and neither does it fall under any of
the exceptions. Since the rifle was found pursuant to an illegal search, such is
inadmissible.
b. The sworn statement is also inadmissible. Based on the constitution and

jurisprudence, an extra-judicial confession made in a custodial investigation can only
be done in the presence of counsel. In this case, the sworn statement was made in the
custodial investigation, and it amounted to an extra-judicial confession since Rey
voluntary admitted to the crime. Hence, since it was done without the presence of
counsel, it is inadmissible.
c. The waiver of the right to counsel is inadmissible. Based on the constitution and
jurisprudence, a waiver of the right to counsel made in the custodial investigation can
only be done in the presence of counsel. In this case, Rey waived his right to counsel
in the custodial investigation without the presence of counsel. Hence, such waiver is
inadmissible.
a. RIFLE— The rifle is inadmissible as evidence as it was fruit of a poisonous tree.

The Rules provide that a search warrant must first be obtained before the police
can conduct a search and take custody of the personal possession. This is without
prejudice to the fact that search warrants are not needed in certain situations. In
this case, the police had ample time to procure a search warrant but did not make
efforts to do so. Moreover, it does not appear that the seizure was consented to by
Rey, nor was it incidental to a valid arrest, nor can it be considered under the
exception of stop and frisk. Therefore, since the situation does not fall under any
of the exceptions allowed for a valid warrantless search, the seizure of the rifle
without a warrant makes the rifle inadmissible as evidence.
b. SWORN STATEMENT— The sworn statement is inadmissible as evidence. For
a sworn statement to be admissible as evidence, it has to be done voluntarily, in
writing and in the presence of a counsel. In this case, the sworn statement was
not done in the presence of the counsel and the waiver of right to counsel was
defective.
c. WAIVER OF RIGHT TO COUNSEL— The waiver of the right to counsel is
not admissible. For a waiver of the right to counsel to be admissible, it must be
done voluntarily, in writing, with the person waiving knowing that he has such
right to waive and done in the presence of a counsel. In this case, there was no
counsel present when Rey signed the waiver, hence the waiver of the right to
counsel is inadmissible.
14. Pong was arrested in a buy-bust operation selling illegal drugs to a poseur
buyer. Is his arrest legal despite the absence of a preliminary investigation?
Will your answer be the same if it turned out that what he sold was not
shabu but only tawas or alum? Give the requisites for hot pursuit, with
illustrative example. (5%)
For the first question, the arrest is legal despite the absence of a preliminary investigation.
Under the Rules of Court, a person may be arrested in flagrante delicto or pursuant to a lawful
warrantless arrest, and since it is a warrantless arrest, an arrest warrant nor a preliminary
investigation is required. Only an inquest is required to be done after the arrest, but the accused
may request for a preliminary investigation if he waives his rights under Article 125 of the RPC.
In this case, since Pong was arrested selling drugs, or in flagrante delicto, the arrest was lawful
despite the absence of a preliminary investigation.
For the second question, my answer would not be the same if only tawas or alum was sold,
which are legal items. Under the rules of court, an inflagrante delicto arrest requires: a) an overt
act/crime done; b) in the presence of the arresting officer. In this case, if only tawas or alum was
involved, there was no crime committed since these are legal items. Hence, an inflagrante
delicto arrest cannot be legally done, if there is no crime done.
The requisites of hot pursuit are: i) a crime has just been committed; and ii) the arresting officer
has probable cause to believe based on personal knowledge of facts and circumstances that the
person he is about to arrest committed the crime. In a hot pursuit arrest, the officer need not
witness the crime personally.
An example would be when a police officer immediately arrives at the scene of a crime wherein a
person was killed. When the police officer arrives, all the spectators shouted and pointed at the
assailant, telling the officer that the assailant was the person who shot the victim. Seeing the
assailant covered in blood and holding a gun, the police officer runs after the assailant until the
assailant was captured and arrested. The facts mentioned would be an example of a hot pursuit
arrest.
Yes, his arrest despite the absence of a preliminary investigation, is legal. The Rules provide that
preliminary investigation is not a jurisdictional requirement and absence thereof will not make
the arrest illegal. Moreover, preliminary investigations are required before filing of complaint or
information for crimes which have a penalty of at least 4 years 1 month and 2 days, EXCEPT
when there is warrantless arrest, in which case inquest takes the place of a preliminary
investigation.
Yes, my answer will still be the same if it turned out that what he sold was not shabu but only
tawas. The legality of a warrantless arrest only takes into consideration the circumstances in
which he was arrested and not as to whether or not he really committed the crime. In this case,
the arresting officers may have had reason to believe that what Pong was selling is actually
shabu as shabu and tawas do look alike.
For a valid warrantless arrest of hot pursuit to be valid, there must be a crime which has been
committed and the arresting officers have reasonable ground to believe, based on their personal
knowledge of facts or circumstances, that the person to be arrested has committed it. An
example is when police officers hear a shout from a woman a few meters away and when the
police officer looks, they see a man running away from the with a bloodied knife. The police
officers who run after the said man can validly arrest him without a warrant because such is in
hot pursuit which falls under the exception of a need of a warrant before arrest.
15. Raul was charged with violation of BP 22 for issuing a check without
sufficient funds. After trial, he was acquitted. Subsequently, he was accused
of estafa arising from the same act, because of the elements of deceit and
damage. Raul’s lawyer raised the defense of double jeopardy. Is such
defense tenable? (5 %.)
Such defense is not tenable. Under the law, one of the elements of double jeopardy is that the
second jeopardy must be for the same offense in the first jeopardy, or necessarily includes or is
included in the offense, or is an attempt or a frustration of the offense.
Jurisprudence has held that BP 22 violations and estafa do not include one another and a
conviction or acquittal in either does not bar a further prosecution of another. There is no
double jeopardy because: i) estafa involves deceit and damage, which is not present in BP 22; ii)
BP 22 is mala prohibita, while estafa is mala in se; iii) BP 22 a special penal law, while estafa is
punished under the RPC.
Therefore, such defense is not tenable, since there would be no jeopardy.
No, the defense is not tenable. For there to be double jeopardy, the accused must have been
indicted for a crime which he was subsequently acquitted or convicted with by a court who had
jurisdiction and that another criminal case was filed which is a frustration, attempt thereof or
which is necessarily included in the crime he was acquitted or convicted with. In this case, there
is no double jeopardy as the crime of estafa is not included, is not a frustration nor is it an
attempt of the crime of BP 22. Moreover, BP 22, being a special law cannot be complexed with a
crime under the RPC which in this case is estafa. Hence, estafa can be filed separately without
violating a person’s right not to be placed under double jeopardy.
16. What is the rule on admission by silence? Simon was brought to the police
station for investigation on the alleged rape of Lucy. While in the police
station, Lucy pointed to Simon and said, “He’s the one who raped me.”
Simon remained silent. May Simon’s silence be offered in evidence as an
implied admission of guilt? (5%)
The rule on admission by silence dictates that when a person who is in within visual and hearing
distance and in the presence of a person who makes a statement that would naturally elicit a
response, but remains silent, such silence may be received as an admission against him.
In this case, Simon’s silence cannot be offered as an implied admission of guilt, because of his
constitutional right to remain silent under custodial investigation. Under the constitution, a
person undergoing custodial investigation has the right to remain silent, and such silence should
not be taken against him or her. In this case, Simon was already under custodial investigation,
as he was brought to the police station for investigation. Thus, Simon had the right to remain
silent and it would not prejudice him. Therefore, Simon’s silence cannot be offered in evidence
as an implied admission of guilt.
The rule on admission by silence provides that when a person is accused of something which a
normal person would normally react to if not true, but did not react or speak up, his silence can
be used against him and constitutes admission. This presupposes that he actually heard the
accusation and he had the capacity to actually deny it.
No, Simon’s silence cannot be offered in evidence as implied admission of guilt. The Miranda
Rights afforded to an accused equally applies to when the person is under custodial
investigation. In this case, Simon was already under custodial investigation as he has been
singled out already hence his rights as an accused is applicable, including the right to remain
silent. Therefore, his silence cannot be used against him.
17. What are the four distinctions between a search warrant and a warrant of
arrest – as to probable cause, subject matter, personal examination, and
time to serve? (5%)
As to probable cause, a search warrant needs probable cause that a crime has just been
committed, and the instruments or effects of the crime are in the place to be searched or in the
person to be searched. In an arrest warrant, the probable cause is that a crime has just been
committed, and the person to be arrested is guilty of the crime.
As to subject matter, a search warrant is for the search and seizure of personal property that are
instruments of the crime, fruits/proceeds of the crime, or used or intended to be used for the
crime. For an arrest warrant, the subject matter is a natural person.
As to personal examination, in a search warrant, there must be a personal examination by the

judge of the complainant and his witnesses in the form of searching questions and answers, and
it must be probing and exhaustive. In an arrest warrant, the judge does not need to personally
examine the complainant and witnesses, it being enough the judge personally evaluates the
report of the investigating prosecutor.
As for time to serve, the search warrant is generally only enforced during the day time, and it
expires after 10 days. An arrest warrant can be enforced at any time of the day and night, and it
does not expire until recalled or actually enforced.
1. Search warrant v. Warrant of arrest
o PROBABLE CAUSE
§ Search warrant— there is a crime that was committed and that there
is probable cause to believe that the place to or person to be
searched have the articles involved in the said crime.
§ Warrant of arrest— that a crime has been committed and that the
person to be arrested is probably guilty thereof and that there is a
need to place said person under custody.
o SUBJECT MATTER
§ Search warrant— the subject matter of a search warrant is the thing
to be seized
§ Warrant of arrest— the subject matter is the person to be seized, to
take him under the custody of the law for him to answer to a crime
charged against him.
o PERSONAL EXAMINATION
§ Search warrant—before issuing a search warrant, the judge has to
make a personal determination of probable cause based on the
testimonies of the applicant and other witnesses by asking
searching or probing questions
§ Warrant of arrest— The Constitution does not mandate a judge to
ask searching questions nor take testimonies of applicant and
other witnesses before the judge can determine whether there is
probable cause. It is sufficient that the judge personally examines
the records, the resolution of the prosecutor or other supporting
documents in his determination of probable case.
o TIME TO SERVE
§ Search warrant—a search warrant has a life of only 10 days and it
can be served generally only during the day. However, if based on
the affidavit, the thing to be seized is on a person then the search
warrant can be served at any time of the day (day or night) at any
day.
§ Warrant of arrest— a warrant of arrest is valid until the person is
taken under custody of the law. It can be served at any day and at
any time (day or night)
18. Roy was charged with two counts of raping his minor daughter. Upon
arraignment, Roy pleaded guilty but bargained for a lesser penalty for each
count. The public prosecutor and complainant’s mother agreed to the plea
bargain. Hence the trial court rendered judgment sentencing Roy to 20
years for each count of rape.
A. Was there a proper plea bargaining?
There was no proper plea bargaining. Under the rules of court and jurisprudence, plea
bargaining can only be done if the accused pleads guilty to a lesser offense, or to one of a
multi-count indictment, with the consent of the prosecutor and the offended party. In this case,
the plea bargaining consisted of bargaining for a lesser penalty, which is not allowed in our
courts. If an accused will plead guilty, he or she cannot subsequently bargain to reduce the
penalty. Hence, there was no proper plea bargaining.
A. No, there was no proper plea bargaining. The Rules provide that for a plea bargaining
to be proper, the accused must plead to a lesser offense which is necessarily included in
the crime charged, with the conformity of the prosecutor and the private offended party.
In this case, Roy did not plead to a lesser offense but pleaded for a lesser penalty which is
not allowed under the law as the latter is only a mere consequence of the former.
B. If not, what should the court have done? (5%)
The court should have entered a plea of not guilty, since a conditional plea is a plea of not guilty.
Jurisprudence has held a plea of guilty with the condition of pleading for a lighter penalty is a
conditional plea, and hence, is a plea of not guilty.
The court could also have clarified if the plea bargaining intended was pleading guilty to one
count only of the two counts.
B. The court should have entered a plea of “not guilty.” The Rules provide that a plea of
not guilty will be entered if the accused does not plead, presents exculpatory evidence or
if the accused makes a conditional plea. In this case, since pleading guilty to a lesser
offense is a conditional plea, the court should have entered a plea of not guilty and
thereafter proceeded to trial.
19. For failing to perform appendictomy on a patient despite clear signs of acute
appendicitis, as a result of which the patient died, the RTC convicted Dr.
Todas of reckless imprudence resulting in homicide. While his appeal with
the Court of Appeals was pending, Dr. Todas died. What will happen to his
criminal liability? Is he still civilly liable? If so, what are the remedies
available to the heirs of the patient? (5%)
The criminal liability and civil liability ex delicto will be extinguished, but the heirs of the patient
have other remedies available since Dr. Todas is civilly liable for other sources of obligation,
namely, quasi-delict.
The rules of court provide that the death of the accused pending appeal extinguishes his criminal
liability and civil liability ex delicto. However, the heirs/estate of the accused can still be held
liable for the independent civil actions under Article 32, 33, 34, and 2176 of the Civil Code.
Further, the rules on special proceedings provide that a case may be filed against the executor or
administrator of the estate for injuries/damages to the person or cases of quasi-delict.
In this case, Dr. Todas died, and hence, his criminal liability and civil liability ex delicto is
extinguished. However, Dr. Todas can be held civilly liable for other sources of obligations, such
as quasi-delict. In this case, the failure to perform appendectomy or medical negligence is also a
quasi-delict. Hence, the heirs of the patient can file a case against the executor or administrator
of the estate for the quasi-delict and hold them civilly liable.
Dr. Todas’ criminal liability will be extinguished. The Rules provide that death of an accused
during trial or pending appeal will extinguish his criminal liability as well as civil liability arising
therefrom. This rule is without prejudice to the availment of the heirs of the patient of
independent civil actions as his liability can stem from different sources and is not confined to
that of his criminal liability. The heirs can file an independent civil action arising from quasi
delict against the legal representative of Dr. Todas.
20. What are the different modes of appealing a judgment of conviction in a

criminal case, rendered by the MTC, RTC and Court of Appeals? Is a
judgment of acquittal appealable? Explain your answer.(5%)
If the MTC renders a judgment of conviction, the accused can file a notice of appeal with the
MTC, bringing the case to the RTC.
If the RTC renders a judgment of conviction:

a) If it is in the exercise of its original jurisdiction, accused can file a notice of appeal with
the RTC, and bring the case to the CA.
b) If it is in the exercise of appellate jurisdiction, accused files a petition for review under
Rule 42 with the CA.
c) If the RTC renders a judgment convicting the accused to a penalty of reclusion perpetua,
life imprisonment, or for a lesser penalty connected to the crime imposing reclusion perpetua or
life imprisonment or death, the accused can file a notice of appeal with the RTC, and bring the
case to the CA.
d) If the RTC imposes the penalty of death, the case is automatically reviewed by the CA.
The accused need not file a notice of appeal.
If the CA renders a judgment of conviction:

a) If the judgment is for a penalty of death, the SC automatically reviews the case.
b) If the judgment is reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment, then pursuant to Dungo vs.
People, the accused can either file a notice of appeal with the CA, or a petition for review under
Rule 45 with the SC.
c) If the judgment of conviction is for a penalty less than reclusion perpetua or life
imprisonment, then by filing a petition for review under Rule 45 with the SC.
As a general rule, a judgment of acquittal is not appealable since double jeopardy proscribes an
appeal from an acquittal. However, jurisprudence has held that an acquittal can be challenged
by a petition for certiorari under Rule 65, when there is: 1) a denial of due process on part of the
prosecution; or 2) when the court has acted without or in excess of its jurisdiction, or with grave
abuse of discretion, amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.
1. Modes of appeal
o Notice of appeal
§ File a notice of appeal with the MTC to the RTC or the RTC to CA
§ File a notice of appeal with the RTC (appellate jurisdiction) to the
CA when RTC imposes a penalty of reclusion perpetua, life
imprisonment or lesser penalty which arose out of the same
occurrence and occasion which gave rise to the penalty of
reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment.
o Petition for Review via Rule 42
§ Petition for review of decisions from the RTC decided in its appellate
jurisdiction to the CA
o Automatic review
§ When RTC imposes a penalty of death, the decision will
automatically be reviewed by the CA and the SC.
o Petition for Review on Certiorari via Rule 45
§ When the CA does not impose a penalty of reclusion perpetua, life
imprisonment or less.
Furthermore, the case of Dungo v. People provides that when the CA imposes a
penalty of reclusion perpatua or life imprisonment, there are 2 modes of appeal
available. One is to file a notice of appeal in the CA to the SC as a matter of right and
another is to file a petition for review on certiorari with the SC via Rule 45 as a matter of
discretion and raise only questions of law which will be granted when there are special or
important reasons to do so.
As a general rule, judgment of acquittal is not appealable because it will put the accused
under double jeopardy. However, jurisprudence provides for a remedy to question the
judgment of acquittal which is a petition for certiorari under Rule 65. Such remedy is not
an appeal but rather an independent action that does not look into errors of merit but
rather errors as to jurisdiction of the court in making the decision. Such remedy is
allowed to be resorted to when there is lack of due process or that there is grave abuse of
discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of the court when
making its decision. Moreover, resorting to this remedy will not put the accused under
double jeopardy because it has an effect of making void the 1st judgment hence 1st
jeopardy did not attach.
21. Kit is the child of the spouses Mel and Winnie. Mel sued Minnie for judicial
declaration of nullity of marriage under Article 36 of the Family Code. In the
trial, the following testified over the objection of Winnie: Kit, Mel, and Don,
a medical doctor who used to treat Winnie. Rule on Winnie’s objections
which are the following:
A. Mel cannot testify against her because of the rule on marital privilege;
Mel can testify. Under the rules of court, an exception to the rule on marital privilege is if it
involves a civil case between one spouse against the other. The case involved here is an Article
36 filed by Mel against Winnie, which is a civil case between one spouse against the other.
Hence, Mel can testify, as an exception to the rule on marital privilege.
Mel can testify against his wife Minnie. The rule on marital privilege provide that, as a general
rule, a spouse cannot testify against the other. However it provides for exceptions such as when
a civil case is filed against the other. In this case, a judicial declaration of nullity of marriage
under Article 36 is a judicial case filed by Mel against Minnie hence the former can testify
against the latter.
B. Kit cannot testify against her because of the doctrine of parental

privilege;
Kit can testify. Under the rules of court, the doctrine of parental privilege only means that a
child cannot be compelled to testify against his or her parents or direct ascendants, but the child
may voluntary do so. In this case, Kit is voluntarily testifying and is not being compelled against
his will. Hence, Kit can testify.
Kit can testify against Minnie. The Rule on parental privilege provides that the child cannot be
coerced to testify against his or her parents. Moreover, the privilege is given to the person
testifying and not to the accused. In this case, the privilege is with Kit (the child) and she has the
prerogative as to whether or not she would want to avail of the privilege. The rule merely
proscribes coercion but does not disallow the child to testify against her mother, should she
want to.
C. Don cannot testify against her because of the doctrine of privileged

communication between doctor and patient. (5%)
Don can testify. Under the rules of court, while a doctor is covered by the privileged
communications between doctor and patient, a doctor can still testify as an expert witness, and
based on hypothetical facts, without breaking the privilege. Hence, Don can testify as an expert
witness and based on hypothetical facts, without violating the privileged communication
between doctor and patient.
The ruling on the objection for Don, the medical doctor would depend on what was testified
upon. The rules provide that a physician or psychologist cannot disclose matters regarding the
physical, mental or psychological disposition of the patient without going against the
physician-client confidentiality. However, Don may testify on matters that are hypothetical in
nature and does not concern anything discussed in light of treating Minnie.
22.Define hearsay. Why is hearsay evidence excluded? Are there exceptions to
the hearsay rule? What is the meaning of residual exception to the hearsay
rule under the Amended Rules on Evidence? (5%)
Hearsay is a statement made by a declarant other than the one made in trial, offered as truth of
its contents.
It is excluded because: 1) there was no opportunity to cross-examine such statement; 2) it was

not made under oath or affirmation; 3) the judge has no chance to observe the demeanor of the
witness while the statement was being made.
There are exceptions to the hearsay rule, namely: 1) dying declaration; 2) statement of a
deceased person or a person of unsound mind; 3) declaration against interest; 4) pedigree; 5)
family reputation; 6) common reputation; 7) res gestae; 8) business records; 9) official records;
10) commercial lists; 11) learned treatises; 12) testimony or deposition in a former proceeding;
13) residual exception.
The residual exception states that when a statement does not fall under any of the exceptions to
hearsay but it has the equivalent circumstances of trustworthiness, and is 1) is offered to prove a
material fact; 2) it is more probative than any other evidence that can be offered; 3) the interests
of justice and the purposes of the rules would be best served in admitting it.
Hearsay is a statement other than one made by a declarant while testifying at a trial or hearing
Offered to prove the truth of the facts asserted. “Statement” consists of oral or written
statements including non-verbal conduct which is done as an assertion. Hearsay evidence is
excluded because the opposing party has no opportunity to cross examine the declarant to test
his or her credibility or truthfulness. Moreover, the court is also not given a chance to assess the
demeanor of the declarant. There are 13 exceptions in total to the hearsay rule. Examples of
which would be dying declaration, res gestae, common reputation, statement of deceased or
person of unsound mind, learned treaties and others.
Residual exception to the hearsay rule is those statements which were not mentioned as
exceptions to the hearsay which however have the same equivalent circumstantial guarantee of
trustworthiness and the court has determined that the statement is
- Offered as evidence for a material fact
- Has more probative value than what Proponent can procure with due diligence
- That the purpose of the rules and the interest of justice would be best served by
admitting the statement.
23.Re judicial affidavit rule:

A. To what actions is it applicable?
It is applicable to all actions which requires the reception of evidence. Further, it applies to
criminal cases wherein: i) the penalty does not exceed 6 years; ii) regardless of the penalty, if the
parties agree to use judicial affidavits; and iii) the civil aspect of the criminal case, regardless of
the penalty.
Applicable to all actions requiring reception of evidence. However, for criminal cases complying
with the judicial affidavit rule is not mandatory for crimes with penalty exceeding 6 years unless
the parties agree to submit judicial affidavits.
B. When should the judicial affidavit be submitted and what should be

attached thereto?
The judicial affidavit should be submitted at least 5 days before the pre-trial, or preliminary
conference, or the hearing. The documentary and object evidence must be attached to the
judicial affidavit.
The judicial affidavit should be submitted at least 5 days before the pre-trial or 5 days before the
hearing. All documentary and object evidence must be attached thereto.
C. What is the effect of its non-submission? (5%)

The effect of non-submission is that the party waives its submission, and hence, precludes him
from presenting the witness. However, the rules allow a late submission, upon payment of a fee
between 1,000 to 5,000 pesos.
Non-submission would tantamount to waiver of the party to present the witness to testify in
court. However, the rules allow belated submission provided that it will not unduly prejudice the
opposing party and that the party who did not submit pays a fine not less than P1,000 but not
exceeding P5,000.
The court may allow only once the late submission of the same provided:
a) the delay is for a valid reason
b) would not unduly prejudice the opposing party
c) the defaulting party pays a fine of not less than Pl,000.00 nor more than P5.000.00 at the
discretion of the court.
24.Give the reasons underlying the adoption of the following rules of evidence:
A. Original Document Rule
The original document rule applies when documentary evidence is offered as proof of its
contents, since when a document is involved, the original is deemed to be the most reliable
document to be presented in court.
ORIGINAL DOCUMENT RULE—the original document rule provides that when a document
is to be presented in court as evidence, the original document should be presented. However,
this admits od exceptions wherein secondary evidence can be presented in lieu of the original
one. The underlying reason for adopting said rule is that the original carries with it reliability
and credibility as compared to secondary evidence which may have been altered
B. Parol Evidence Rule
The parol evidence rule is a consequence of the integration rule which states that when parties
have reduced their agreement into writing, the writing contains and integrates all the terms and
conditions of their agreement. Thus, any other evidence modifying, explaining, or adding to the
terms of the written agreement is generally inadmissible.
PAROL EVIDENCE RULE—the parol evidence rule provides that when there is a written
agreement, no other documents or evidence aliunde can be presented to prove the contents as
well as the terms and conditions of the said agreement. The underlying reason for such is to
preserve reliability and integrity of written agreements.
C. Admissibility of circumstantial evidence

Circumstantial evidence is admitted because there are a lot of crimes which normally occur
without direct evidence being available. These are crimes done in private or done in hiding. If
circumstantial evidence cannot be admitted, then a lot of crimes would be left unpunished.
Circumstantial is just as strong as direct evidence when it meets the requisites under the law,
which is i) there is more than one circumstance; ii) the facts from which the inferences are
derived are proven; iii) the circumstances prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable
doubt and it all points to one person as the perpetrator.
ADMISSIBILITY OF CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE—the underlying reason for

admitting circumstantial evidence is that direct evidence is not always available to make a case
against the accused. More often than not, there is a need to resort to circumstantial evidence to
convict an accused.
D. Inadmissibility of illegally obtained extrajudicial confession (5%).

The inadmissibility of illegally obtained extrajudicial confession is based on the constitutional
rights of a person during custodial investigation. People have their constitutional rights in
custodial investigation to ensure state authorities and actors do not abuse their power, such as
the right to remain silent, to counsel, against torture, and that extrajudicial confessions and
waivers of right to counsel can only be done in the presence of counsel.
INADMISSIBILITY OF ILLEGALLY OBTAINED EXTRAJUDICIAL

CONFESSION—the courts are very strict as regards extrajudicial confession made by an
accused. A person under the custody and in the presence of police officers may be coerced or
intimidated to admit to a crime which the accused did not do. The courts will not treat an
extrajudicial admission as admissible if it did not conform to the requirements set forth by
jurisprudence and law. Absent the requirements, it would show that the extrajudicial admission
was in essence, not voluntarily made hence is inadmissible in court.
25.What are the four kinds of warrants under the Rule on Cybercrime
Warrants (A.M. No. 17-11-03-SC)? The cybercrime court in Pasig City issued
a warrant to disclose computer data against a service provider in Davao
City. Is the court’s action legal? What is the effect of the subsequent filing of
a criminal case in Davao City against said service provider? (5%)
The four kinds of warrants are: 1) warrant to disclose computer data; 2) warrant to intercept
computer data; 3) warrant to search, seize, and examine computer systems/data; 4) warrant to
examine computer data.
The Pasig city court’s action is legal. Under the rule on cybercrime warrants, the warrants issued
by the cybercrime courts in pasig city, among others like Makati city, manila city, quezon city,
davao city, Cagayan de oro city, are enforceable nationwide. Thus, the warrant to disclose
computer data issued by the pasig court is enforceable in davao city.
The effect of subsequent filing of a criminal case in Davao City, under the rules on cybercrime
warrants, is that the incidents of the warrant such as a motion to quash, will now be under the
jurisdiction and to be taken cognizance of the criminal case filed in Davao city.
The four kinds of warrants under the Rule on Cybercrime are:

a. Preservation Warrant
b. Interception Warrant
c. Examination Warrant
d. Destruction Warrant
The Pasig’s action is not legal. The warrant may only be issued where the crime was committed,
where the service provider is or where the injury was suffered. In this case, there is no showing
that any of the three situations mentioned occurred in Pasig hence Pasig court’s action of issuing
the warrant was not legal.
If a criminal case was subsequently filed in Davao, would grant the court jurisdiction over the
offense. The service provider can file appropriate relief in the Davao Court to quash the warrant
made by Pasig.
2020 Finals
2019 Finals
Multiple Choice. Choose the correct answer. (2 % each)

1. A witness for the prosecution was asked on cross examination questions on
matters which he did not mention in the direct examination. The questions
are:
A. objectionable because of the inherent unfairness of the questions.
B. objectionable because of the inherent irrelevancy of the questions.
C. proper, if the questions tend to test the truthfulness and freedom from interest of
the witness.
D. proper if the witness is also the accused.
2. The accused's right against double jeopardy cannot be invoked when the
A. prosecution appeals from a judgment of conviction in the same case
B. accused is charged with the same offense in two separate pending cases.
C. charge against the accused was dismissed before arraignment
D. accused is prosecuted anew for the same offense after he has been
convicted or acquitted from such offense.
3. The following statements regarding the application of the survivor

disqualification rule are true except:
deceased.
B. The subject of the testimony is as to any matter occuring after the death of such
deceased person.
C. The suit is upon a claim by the plaintiff against the estate of such deceased
person.
D. The witness is the plaintiff, or an assignor of that party, or in whose
behalf the case is prosecuted.
4. Erny was accused of swindling Alan. During the trial, the prosecution may:
A. over the objection of the accused, present witnesses who have been
swindled by Erny to prove that Alan committed similar acts.
B. over the objection of the accused, present witnesses who have been swindled by
Erny to prove that Alan has a propensity to swindle people.
C. over the objection of the accused, present witnesses who have been swindled by
Erny to prove the similarity in the manner by which all of them, including the
victim in the present case, were swindled.
D. not, over the objection of the accused, present witnesses who have been swindled
by Erny only if the objection is overruled.

B. A court order is not always required before undertaking DNA testing.
C. The result of DNA testing is automatically admitted as evidence in the court in
D. The DNA profile of a person is open to public scrutiny
6. X, Y and Z robbed a bank. Two days after the robbery, X was arrested and he
immediately confessed to his participation in the robbery. In the process, he
implicated Y and Z in the course of his custodial investigation. Assuming the
requisites for a valid extrajudicial confession were followed, the statements
of Xare:
A. admissible not only against him but also admissible against Y and Z if repeated as
testimony in court.
B. admissible only against him and inadmissible against Y and Z, even if repeated as
testimony in court.
C. inadmissible against him and against Y and Z under the rule of inter alias acta
D. not admissible for any purpose, such being extrajudicial statements.
7. In a suit for damages, the counsel for the plaintiff, in an effort to show bias
of the witness against the plaintiff on cross examination, asked the witness if
he has an unpaid loan in favor of the plantiff. The witness:
A. may refuse to answer the question on self-incrimination grounds.
B. cannot be required to answer if the answer would tend to establish liability
against him.
C. must answer the question even if the answer would tend to show that he owes the
plaintiff.
D. cannot be required to answer because the question is irrelevant.
8. Which of the following statements is not procedurally sound?

A. In rape cases, the failure to specify the exact date or time when the rape was
committed does not make the information ipso facto defective on its face.
B. It is generally not necessary to state in the complaint or information the precise
date of the commission of the offense except when the date of commission is an
essential element of the offense.
C. The nature and character of the crime charged are primarily
determined by the designated offense in the complaint or
information.
D. An accused is deemed to have waived objections to any formal defect or
insufficiency of the information if he voluntarily enters a plea and participates in
the trial.
9. Compare the conditional examination of a defense witness to the

conditional examination of a prosecution witness before the trial. (4%)
(See also 2018 Finals, # 9)
4/5 pts.
In conditional examination of a defense witness, it may be done before a judge, a

member of the bar, or a judge of an inferior court. It may be resorted to when the witness
is (1) sick of infirm; (2) resides more than 100 km away and has no means to attend the
hearing; or (3) other causes that would prevent the witness from attending.
In conditional examination of a prosecution witness, it may only be done before the
judge where the case is pending. It may be resorted to only when (1) the witness is too
sick or infirm; or (2) is about to leave the Philippines without a definite date of returning.
10. Under Rule 111, Sec. 2, regarding criminal action vis-a-vis separate civil
action, the procedure therein is characterized by four key words: deferment,
suspension, consolidation and tolling of prescriptive period. Explain.(5%)
Deferment is when a criminal action is instituted prior the civil action that arises from
the criminal action. The said civil action shall be deferred and cannot be instituted until
the termination of the civil action.
Suspension is when the civil action arising from the offense is instituted prior to the
criminal action. The institution of the criminal action shall suspend the civil action that
was instituted prior, until the termination of the criminal action.
In deferment and suspension, the civil and criminal actions may be consolidated into a
single case as long as the motion for consolidation is before the judgment is rendered.
In case the civil action cannot be instituted or has been suspended, the prescriptive
period to file the same shall be tolled and shall not commence to run.
11. Agaton was stabbed in the abdomen. He immediately called for help and a
policeman promptly approached him. He told the policeman that he would
die from the stab wound inflicted on him by Bruno who has a grudge against
him. He was brought to the hospital for treatment where, on the same day,
he was shot and killed by an unknown assailant. Eventually, Bruno was
charged in court for the death of Agaton. The prosecution had to build its
case on circumstantial evidence. At the trial, the policeman was presented to
testify on Agaton's declaration. The defense objected. However, the
prosecution argued that the evidence is admissible either as a dying
declaration or as part of the res gestae, and is relevant to the fact in issue,
the guilt of Bruno for the death of Agaton. Is the prosecution correct? (5%)
(See also 2021 Finals, #11)

4/5 pts.
The prosecution is correct. As a general rule, witnesses may testify to facts acquired
through their own perception upon which they have personal knowledge of, otherwise it
is inadmissible for being hearsay. Two exceptions to the hearsay rule are dying
declarations and res gestae.
A dying declaration is admissible when

1) The declarant is dead/unable to testify;
2) Declaration was done under the consciousness of an impending death;
3) Declaration relates to the facts and circumstances of his death.
Here, the declaration by Agaton was made when he was conscious of an

impending death from the stab wound and it related to the circumstances thereof. Thus,
it is inadmissible. The testimony is also inadmissible on the ground of res gestae because
a startling occurrence occurred when Aagaton was stabbed and his declaration is related
to the startling occurrence when it was made without a sufficient lapse of time for him to
fabricate his words.
Thus, the testimony of the police officer is admissible despite being hearsay on
the basis of dying declaration and res gestae.
12. Lito, Ric, Joey and Weng were convicted of murder by the RTC. Only Weng
personally appeared during the promulgation of judgment. Later, without
surrendering and explaining the reasons for their absence, Lito, Ric and
Joey joined Weng in filing a joint motion for reconsideration. The RTC took
cognizance of the joint motion for reconsideration and later issued an order
acquitting Lito and Ric and downgrading the conviction of Joey and Weng
from murder to homicide. The People filed a petition for certiorari with the
Court of Appeals to annul the order. Lito, Ric, Joey and Weng argued that
the petition would place them in double jeopardy. Is their argument correct?
(5%)
Their argument is not correct. Double jeopardy occurs when the prosecution
appeals a judgment in a criminal case for the same offense, an attempt or frustration
thereof, or those necessarily included in the offense of the first case.
A petition for certiorari under Rule 65 is not an appeal but an independent and
separate special civil action to assail the jurisdiction of the court that acted with grave
abuse of discretion amount to lack or excess of jurisdiction. Here, the trial court gravely
abused its jurisdiction by granting the motion for reconsideration filed by Lito, Ric, and
Joey because it has already been divested of its jurisdiction as to them because of their
absence in the promulgation, resulting to them losing their right to the remedies of new
trial, reconsideration, and appeal.
Thus, the trial court acted without jurisdiction and the filing of a Rule 65 petition
for certiorari will not put them in jeopardy.
13. The barangay captain reported to the police that Jong was illegally keeping
in his house in the barangay an Armalite M16 rifle. Thus, the police
conducted a search of Jong's house and found said rifle which they seized.
They also brought Jong to the police station. During the investigation, he
voluntarily signed a Sworn Statement that he was possessing said rifle
without license or authority to possess, and a Waiver of Right to Counsel.
During the trial of Jong for illegal possession of firearm, the prosecution
submitted in evidence the rifle, Sworn Statement and Waiver of Right to
Counsel. Rule individually on the admissibility of the:
A. Rifle
B. Sworn Statement
C. Waiver of Right to Counsel (5%)
(See also 2021 Finals, # 13)
a. The rifle is inadmissible, being a fruit from a poisonous tree. A search and seizure
should, as a general rule, be conducted with a warrant. There was no search
warrant in this case and neither did it fall under the exceptions for a valid
warrantless arrest. The arrest was illegal. The rifle was not in plain view of the
officers. They did not have prior justification for their intrusion and neither did
they inadvertently discover the rifle as it was not immediately apparent because
they had to search the house. Thus, the rifle is inadmissible, since there was also
no consent on the part of Jong.
b. The sworn statement is inadmissible. For an extrajudicial confession to be
admissible, it has to be (1) express; (2) written; (3) voluntary; and (4) done in the
presence of counsel, and thus, is inadmissible.
c. The waiver of right to counsel is inadmissible. For such waiver to be valid, it has
to be (1) voluntarily and intelligently made; (2) with knowledge that such right
exists; (3) in the presence of counsel. Since the waiver was executed without the
presence of counsel, it is inadmissible.
14. In separate criminal cases, lsko and Vico were charged with murder in RTC
Muntinlupa, lsko in Branch 204 and Vico in Branch 206. In both cases, the
trial courts issued warrants of arrest against the accused. lsko filed a motion
to quash warrant of arrest, while Vico filed a motion for admission to bail.
How should the courts resolve said motions? (5%)
Branch 204 may grant Isko’s motion to quash the arrest, while Branch 206 may not
entertain the motion for admission to bail of Vico.
Custody of the law, or custody over the body of the accused, is necessary for a court to
entertain a motion for admission to bail because a court cannot grant bail to a person
who is free, that is, a person who is not under the custody of the law by virtue of a
warrant of arrest or voluntary surrender. Thus, Branch 206 cannot entertain Vico’s
motion without custody over his body. Whereas, custody over the body of the accused is
not necessary for a court to entertain a motion to quash a warrant. It is incongruous for a
person to first be required to surrender before invoking his freedom. Thus, Branch 204
may grant Isko’s motion to quash the warrant of arrest.
15. The information filed against Andoy charged more than one offense. Andoy
has not yet been arraigned. If you were the lawyer of Andoy, would you file a
motion to quash or a motion for bill of particulars? (5 pts.)
4/5 pts.
I will file a motion to quash. A motion for a bill of particulars is filed when there
are defects in the complaint wherein the accused would desire more details or that the
defects be clarified for him/her to properly plead and prepare his/her defense. While, an
information charging more than one offense is a specific ground enumerated for a
motion to quash. When the motion to quash is granted, the prosecutor shall be given the
opportunity to correct the defect. If the prosecutor fails to correct the defect or if the
information still suffers the same defect, the case shall be dismissed and my client
released. This scenario will not be available if I opt to file a motion for bill of particulars.
16. Bart was charged with frustrated murder. During the trial, the victim died.
Thus, the prosecution sought to amend the information from frustrated to
consummated murder. The accused refused to be arraigned under the
amended information without the conduct of a new preliminary
investigation. Is the accused's position valid? How should the court resolve
the issue? What is the test as to when the rights of an accused are prejudiced
by the amendment of a complaint or information? (5%)
4/5 pts.
The accused’s position is not valid. The prosecution may amend the information
without the need of a new preliminary investigation because prior arraignment, formal
and substantial amendments are allowed.
The court should enter a plea of not guilty in case the accused refuses to plead.
After arraignment, however, only format amendments are allowed which should be done
with leave of court and should not prejudice the accused.
The test to determine whether an amendment is only formal is when it merely

refers to the range of penalty, or when it does not charge a different offense such that it
does not alter the prosecution’s theory so that the accused would likewise have no need
to change his/her defense.
An amendment may be deemed a formal one as when it merely eliminates

vagueness in the information. Here, the amendment is merely formal because the same
offense is being charged and the defendant would not have to change his theory because
the defendant would still have to prove that the same elements of murder were not
present.
arrest - as to probable cause, subject matter, personal examination, and
time to serve? (5 pts.)
(See also 2021 Finals)
As to probable cause, for a search warrant, there has to be probable cause that an
offense has been committed and that the persons or thing are in the place they are
described to be, whereas for a warrant of arrest, there had to be probable cause that an
offense has been committed and the person sought to be arrested committed it.
As to subject matter, a search warrant is issued to search a place or person and to

seize the fruits of the crime, stolen or embezzled objects, or those used or intended to be
used for a crime, so that it may be brought to the custody of the court. For a warrant of
arrest, it is issued to arrest a person so that the court may acquire jurisdiction over his
person, and hold him for trial.
As to personal examination, a judge is required to personally examine the

witnesses in the form of searching questions before issuing a search warrant. While, it is
sufficient for a judge to merely personally evaluate the information and supporting
documents of the prosecutor before issuing a warrant of arrest.
As to time to serve, a search warrant becomes stale after 10 days and it must be
indicated that it can only be served during the day unless it is asserted that the thing is
on the person or in the place to be searched. A warrant of arrest does not become stale
and it may be served at any day at any time, day or night.
18. Roy was charged with two counts of raping his daughter. Upon arraignment,
Roy pleaded guilty but bargained for a lesser penalty for each case. The
public prosecutor and complainant's mother agreed to the plea bargain.
Hence the trial court rendered judgment sentencing Roy to ten years for
each count of rape.
A. Was there a proper plea bargaining?
B. If not, what should the court have done? (5%)

4/5 pts.
a. There was no proper plea bargaining. Under the Rules, an accused may plea to a
lesser offense that is included in the offense charged. A plea to a lesser penalty is
not the plea bargaining contemplated under the rules.
b. The court should have instead entered a plea of not guilty and proceeded to
pre-trial then to trial. A plea or not guilty shall be entered when (1) the accused so
pleads; (2) the accused makes a conditional plea; (3) the accused makes a
conditional plea; (3) the accused refuses to plead; or (5) in the case of
improvident pleas, which is what happened in this case.
19. For failing to perform appendictomy on a patient despite clear signs of acute
appendicitis, as a result of which the patient died, the RTC convicted Dr.
Tepok of reckless imprudence resulting in homicide. While his appeal with
the Court of Appeals was pending, Dr. Tepok died. What will happen to his
criminal liability? Is he still civilly liable? If so, what are the remedies
available to the heirs of the patient? (5%)
Upon the death of an accused pending appeal and before conviction, the criminal liability
and civil liabilities arising from the offense shall be extinguished. Dr. Tepok is still civilly
liable because his death merely extinguished his pecuniary liabilities. His liability arising
from independent civil actions like quasi-delict, for recklessly performing medical
malpractice, still remains.
The heirs of the patient may file a claim against the executor/administrator to enforce
the civil liability of Dr. Tepok that arose from a quasi-delict.
20. What are the different modes of appealing a judgment of conviction in a

criminal case? Is a judgment of acquittal appealable? Explain your
answer.(5%)
(See 2021 Finals, #20)

Answer in the BB only got 4/5
21. C is the child of the spouses Hand W. H sued his wife for judicial declaration
of nullity of marriage under Article 36 of the Family Code. In the trial, the
following testified over the objection of W: C, H and D, a medical doctor who
used to treat W. Rule on W's objections which are the following:
A. H cannot testify against her because of the rule on marital privilege;
B. C cannot testify against her because of the doctrine of parental
privilege;
C. D cannot testify against her because of the doctrine of privileged
communication between patient and physician. (5 pts.)

22.During the trial for violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act, the prosecution
offered in evidence a photocopy of the marked P100.00 bills used in the
buybust operation. Accused Digong objected thereto on the ground that the
best evidence rule prohibits the introduction of secondary evidence in lieu
of the original. (a) Is the photocopy real (object) evidence or documentary
evidence? (b) Is the photocopy admissible in evidence? (5 pts.)
(a) The photocopy is real (object) evidence. Real evidence is that addressed to the
senses of the court, which may be examined, inspected, and viewed by said court.
Documentary evidence is any writing or written expression offered as to the truth
of its contents. The photocopy of the bills was not being offered to prove the truth
of its contents but it was in fact offered as object evidence as the bills in the
buy-bust operation. Thus, the photocopy is real (object evidence).
(b) The photocopy is admissible in evidence, As a general rule, the exact and very
object is required to be presented in court. However, photocopies, illustrations,
and representations may be presented as demonstrative evidence, and is
admissible when duly authenticated by a competent witness and offered in court.
23.Re judicial affidavit rule:

B. When should the judicial affidavit be submitted and what should be
attached thereto?
C. What is the effect of its non-submission? (5 pts.).
a. The judicial affidavit rule is applicable to all actions requiring the reception of
evidence. It is not mandatory in criminal actions exceeding 6 years unless the
accused agrees or as to the civil aspect of the case.
b. The judicial affidavit should be submitted 5 days before the scheduled pre-trial or
hearing. The documentary and object evidence should be attached to the judicial
affidavit.
c. The non-submission of a judicial affidavit results to the waiver of the party of
his/her right to present direct examination of his/her witness. However, the court
may allow a belated submission only once if there is a valid excuse for
non-submission and the counsel pays a P1,000 to P5,000 fine.
24.Give the reasons underlying the adoption of the following rules of evidence:
A. Dead Man's Rule
B. Parol Evidence Rule
C. Best Evidence Rule
D. Rule against the admission of illegally obtained extrajudicial
confession (5 pts.).
a. Dead Man’s Rule was adopted on the ground of fairness. A dead man can’t defend
himself/herself since his/her mouth is forever shut. Thus, the Rules likewise shut the
mouth of a plaintiff or witness who seeks to testify on a fact that occurred before the
death of the dead man.
b. Parol Evidence Rule seeks to prevent the parties to written agreement to alter, explain, or
modify its contents because said agreement is deemed to contain all the contents thereof.
The Rule seeks to protect the integrity of written agreements.
c. Best Evidence Rule presupposes that the original document exists. It prevents the parties
from introducing secondary evidence, subject to certain exceptions. The Rule seeks to
compel the parties to introduce original documents in asserting their claims or defenses
because an original is the most reliable.
d. Extrajudicial confessions obtained illegally are inadmissible because the Rule seeks to
protect the accused from the coercive powers of the State and its agents from obtaining
involuntary confessions from the accused who may confess to offenses they did not
commit out of fear and under pressure.
25.What are the four kinds of warrants under the Rule on Cybercrime
Warrants (A.M. No. 17-11-03-SC)? The cybercrime court in Pasig City issued
a warrant to disclose computer data against a service provider in Davao
City. Is the court's action legal? What is the effect of the subsequent filing of
a criminal case in Davao City against said service provider? (5%)

2018 Finals
LN6D3RFF
I. In a judgment of conviction rendered by the RTC, Roy was sentenced to suffer
the penalty of reclusion perpetua. On appeal to the Court of Appeals, the judgment
of conviction and the penalty imposed by the RTC were affirmed. As Roy's counsel,
what course of action will you take to protect his interest?
A. File a notice of appeal with the Court of Appeals that an appeal will be taken
to the Supreme Court.
B. File a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 with the Sμpreme Court.
C. File a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 with the Supreme Court.
D. File a motion for the early transmission of the record to the Supreme Court, as the
judgment of conviction is subject to automatic review.
2. The accused's right against double jeopardy cannot be invoked when the
A. prosecution appeals from a judgment of conviction in the same case
B. accused is charged with the same offense in two separate pending cases.
C. charge against the accused was dismissed before arraignment
D. accused is prosecuted anew for the same offense after he has been convicted or acquitted
from such offense.
3. The following statements regarding the application of the survivor

disqualification rule are true except:
deceased.
B. The subject of the testimony is as to any matter occurring after the death of
such deceased person.
C. The suit is a claim by the plaintiff against the estate of such deceased person.
D. The witness is the plaintiff, or cln assignor of that party, or on whose behalf the case is
prosecuted.
LN6D3RFF
LN6D3RFF
4. The right of the accused against self-incrimination is violated where
A. the accused was asked to wear the hat recovered at the scene of the crime.
B. a blood sample of the accused is taken for DNA testing to be used as basis of comparison
with blood samples recovered at the place where the killing took place.
C. the accused after entering of a plea of not guilty to the charge is ordered by
the court to make a statement in answer to the allegations in the
information
D. the accused was asked to stand in the course of the testimony of a prosecution witness
for identification.
While walking in a park, Fe accosted Kiko and shouted: "You were the person
5.
who raped me!" The remarks were made in the presence of a lot of people. Yet
Kiko left hurriedly without saying a word. Fe ran after him but Kiko ran as fast as
he could and disappeared.
A. There could be an express admission by Kiko because of his flight.
B. There could be an implied judicial admission by silence under the circumstances.
C. There could be an implied admission under the facts.
D. There is no admission by Kiko under the facts
6. The court may take judicial notice of the following:

a. the contents of the records of other cases
b. the practice of banks in conducting background checks on borrowers
c. the appreciation of one judge of the testimony of a certain witness on the same matter
d. the age of the victim in a rape case

C. The result of DNA testing is automatically admitted as evidence in the court in which it
was sought for.
8. The following is a not a ground for the discharge of an accused to be a state

witness:
A. There is absolute necessity for the testimony of the accused whose discharge is
requested.
B. The testimony of said accused can be substantially corroborated on its material points
C. There is no other direct evidence available for the proper prosecution of the offense
committed, except the testimony of said accused.
D. Said accused appears to be the least guilty.
LN6D3RFF
9. Compare the conditional examination of a defense witness to the conditional
examination of a prosecution witness before the trial. (4%)
DEFENSE WITNESS PROSECUTION WITNESS
SEC 12, Rule 119: Sec 15, Rule 119

1. Too sick, 1. Sick
2. infirm or 2. Infirm
3. residing more than 100km away from 3. Will leave the Philippines and date of
place of trial and has no means to return is uncertain
attend
May be conditionally examined before the May only be conducted by the Court where
1. Judge the case is pending.
2. If not practicable, member of the Bar
in good standing
3. Inferior court
10. Under Rule 111, Sec. 2, regarding criminal action vis-a-vis separate civil action,
the procedure therein is characterized by four key words: deferment, suspension,
consolidation and tolling of prescriptive period. Explain.(5%)
1. DEFERMENT: If the criminal action has already been filed, the civil action may only be
filed AFTER the final judgment iun the criminal case.
2. SUSPENSION: If the civil action has already been filed before the criminal action, the
civil action will be suspended in whatever stage it may be and will proceed after final
judgment in the criminal case
3. CONSOLIDATION: Before judgment on the merits of the civil case and upon motion
of the offended party, the court may allow the civil case to be consolidated with the
criminal case in the court where the case is pending
4. TOLLING OF PRESCRIPTIVE PERIOD: During the time the civil action is deferred
or suspended, the prescriptive period will be interrupted.
11. Atty. Agaton was charged with estafa for misappropriating P20,000.00 which
he had collected for a corporate client in a case handled by him. On direct
examination, he testified solely to the effect that he did not receive the
P20,000.00. On cross-examination, he was shown a receipt for P20,000.00
collection on behalf of his client and asked if the signature in the receipt was his.
Atty. Agaton objected to the question on the ground that the answer would tend to
incriminate him. He was also asked if he had been convicted by final judgment of
qualified theft.
a. Should his objection be sustained?

No, the objection should not be sustained.
The law states that the right against self-incrimination only covers TESTIMONIAL
COMPULSION. In this case, identifying whether the signature belongs to him is a mere
mechanical act which DOES NOT REQUIRE THE USE OF INTELLIGENCE. Moreover, by
taking the witness stand, Atty. Agaton may be subjected to cross examination on matters
covered by his direct examination. Since the issue of the receipt of 20,000 is the subject of his
direct examination, he can be cross examined about matters pertaining thereto.
b. May he object to the question and on what ground? (5%)

He may object to the question of his prior conviction by final judgment of qualified theft
on the ground that it is NOT RELEVANT and NOT COVERED BY THE DIRECT
EXAMINATION.
Under the Propensity Evidence rule, the evidence that a person did or did not do a
certain act at a certain time cannot be used as evidence to prove that he did or did not do
another act at another time. Prior conviction is not relevant to prove the guilty of accused in
another case.
In addition, the fact of his conviction was not covered during direct examination. The
rules provide that an accused may only be cross-examined on matters covered by the direct
examination. Hence, he cannot be questioned on the fact of his prior conviction in another case.
12. H, I, J and K were convicted of murder by the RTC. Only K personally appeared
during the promulgation of judgment. Later, without surrendering and explaining
the reasons for their absence, H, I and J joined K in filing a joint motion for
reconsideration. The RTC took cognizance of the joint motion for reconsideration
and later issued an order acquitting H and I and downgrading the conviction of J
and K from murder to homicide. The People filed a petition for certiorari with the
Court of Appeals to annul the order. H, I, J and K argued that the petition would
place them in double jeopardy. Is their argument correct? (5%)
No, their argument is not correct.
AS a general rule, only the accused may appeal or question the criminal aspect of the
decision. This is because to permit the prosecution to question the criminal aspect would subject
the accused to double jeopardy. However, this rule is subject to exception that it may be
questioned via a petition for certiorari under Rule 65. Such will not amount to double jeopardy
because it merely reviews ERRORS OF JURISDICTION and not errors of judgments or merits.
The prosecution is allowed to file a Rule 65 petition to question the decision where there
is GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction or WHEN
THERE IS LACK OF DUE PROCESS as when the prosecution is deprived of its day in court or
trial is a sham.
In this case, there is grave abuse because the court allowed H, I, J to avail of the remedy
under Rule 121. The Rules provide that absence of accused during promulgation and when the
decision is that of conviction shall tantamount to a waiver of right to avail of right to file
MR/MNT or appeal the decision except if within 15 days,the accused surrenders and file
motion of leave of court to avail of remedies and such absence is due to justifiable
cause. In the case at the bar, H, I, J who were absent during promulgation did not surrender
nor offered reasons for their absence. Mere filing of motion for reconsideration cannot
be considered an act of surrender which contemplates an act of physically and
voluntary submission of oneself to the Court. It is only upon their valid surrender and
only after proper motion that they can avail of the remedy of reconsideration.
13. Sarah and Mat are legally married.

Mat is charged in court with the crime of serious physical injuries committed
against Orly, son of Sarah, stepson of Mat.
Sarah witnessed the infliction of injuries on Orly by Mat.
The public prosecutor called Sarah to the witness stand and offered her testimony
as eyewitness. Counsel for Mat objected on the ground of the marital
disqualification rule under the Rules of Court.
a. Is the objection valid?

i. No. As a general rule, the spouse, during marriage is not allowed to testify for or
against his/her spouse without the latter’s consent. However, as exception, a
spouse may testify against his or her spouse in a criminal case against the other in
case the crime was committed against the testifying spouse or his or her direct
descendants or ascendants. In this case, Orly was a direct descendant of Sarah
hence she may testify against Mat in the said case.
b. Will your answer be the same if Sarah's testimony is offered in a civil case
for recovery of personal property filed by Orly against Mat? (5%)
i. Yes, my answer will change. Sarah will not be allowed to testify in the said civil
case because of the marital disqualification rule. It will not be covered by the first
exception because the 1st exception only covers a civil case filed by the testifying
spouse against his/her spouse. In this case, the civil case is not filed by Sarah but
by his son, Orly.
14. In separate criminal cases, Tomas and Rico were charged with murder in RTC
Muntinlupa, Tomas in Branch 204 and Rico in Branch 206. In both cases, the trial
courts issued warrants of arrest against the accused. Tomas filed a motion to
quash the warrant of arrest, while Rico filed a motion for admission to bail. How
should the courts resolve said motions? (5%)
● Branch 204 should grant the motion to quash filed by Tomas if any of the grounds under
Rule 117 is present. The law states that jurisdiction over the person of the accused is not
necessary for the court to resolve a motion to quash a warrant of arrest.
● On the other hand, Branch 206 should deny the application for bail. The law provides
that before a court may act on application for bail, the accused must be under the
custody of the law. This refers to physical custody which means that the accused must
have been arrested already OR voluntarily surrendered. In this case, Rico has not been
arrested yet. Hence, there is no actual deprivation of liberty that will warrant bail
application.
LND3RF
15. Efren was lawfully arrested without a warrant involving homicide, an offense
which requires a preliminary investigation. What is the procedure that must be
followed regarding the filing of the information, and Efren's rights before and
after the information is filed? (5%)
1. Before the information may be filed, Efren must undergo INQUEST PROCEEDING
conducted by the inquest officer which will take the place of a preliminary investigation
since Efren was ARRESTED WITHOUT A WARRANT.
a. However, Efren may ask for a preliminary investigation on the condition that he
waives the rights under Art. 125 of the Revised Penal Code. Such waiver is not
tantamount to unbridled discretion.
2. If the information has already been filed, Efren may still request for a preliminary
investigation WITHIN 5 days upon learning of the filing of such information without
preliminary investigation.
16. Distinguish between motion to quash and demurrer to evidence - five criteria
(5 pts.)
Motion to Quash Demurrer
Before accused enters his plea WHEN After the prosecution rests
1. That the facts GROUNDS Insufficiency of evidence

charged do not presented by the prosecution
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;
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; and
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
Rule 117 BASIS Rule 119
File a motion before entering HOW May be filed with or without

a plea leave of court
Prior leave is not required.
IF GRANTED: require the EFFECT IF GRANTED: tantamount to

amendment or filing of new an acquittal, double jeopardy
information unless ground is will set in.
double jeopardy/extinction of
criminal liability. IF DENIED:
IF DISMISSED: Go to trial If without leave of court: the

and raise the grounds as accused will waive right to
defense. present evidence
If with leave of court:
Accused may present
evidence
Go to trial and raise the REMEDY Rule 65 if attended by grave

grounds as affirmative abuse (pursuant to case of
defense. GMA v. Sandiganbayan)
arrest - as to probable cause, subject matter, personal examination, and time to
serve? (5 pts.)
SEARCH WARRANT WARRANT OF ARREST
Reasonable ground to believe Probable cause Reasonable ground to believe

that a crime was committed that a crime has been
and the articles involved in committed and the person to
said crime can be found in be arrested is the one who
place/person to be searched committed it and there is a
need to place him/her under
custody.
Place or person to be Subject matter Person to be arrested

searched
Judge is required to Personal examination Only personal evaluation of

personally examine the evidence by the judge is
complainant and his or her required. The judge is not
witnesses under oath by required to personally
asking searching questions or examine the complainant and
probing questions. the witnessed.
Life of 10 days and may only Time to serve Valid until served or until it is
be served during day time. recalled. May be served at
any time and any day.
(day/night)
18. Ray was charged with two counts of raping his daughter. Upon arraignment,
Neal pleaded guilty but bargained for a lesser penalty for each case. The public
prosecutor and complainant's mother agreed to the plea bargain. Hence the trial
court rendered judgment sentencing Ray to ten years for each count of rape. (4/5)
1) Was there a proper plea bargaining?
a) No, the plea bargaining is IMPROPER. The law provides that the only instance
when plea bargaining is allowed is when accused pleads guilty to a lesser offense
necessarily included in the offense charged and with conformity of both the
offended party and the prosecutor. Bargaining for a lesser penalty is not
allowed. AT MOST, it is a consequence of a plea of guilty to a lesser offense.
2) If not, what should the court have done? (5%)
a) A plea which is subject to a condition shall be considered as a plea of not guilty.
The court should have entered a plea of not guilty for the accused and conducted
a normal trial wherein both the prosecution and defense will present their
respective pieces of evidence.
19.For failing to perform appendectomy on a patient despite clear signs of acute

appendicitis, as a result of which the patient died, the RTC convicted of Dr. Samson
of reckless imprudence resulting in homicide. While his appeal with the Court of
Appeals was pending, Dr. Samson died. What will happen to his criminal liability?
Is he still civilly liable? If so, what are the remedies available to the heirs of the
patient? (5%)
● The criminal liability of Dr. Samson will be extinguished. Civil liability ex delicto will also
be extinguished.
● According to People v Bayotas, death of an accused before final judgment extinguished
his criminal liability and civil liability arising from the said crime.
● However, the heirs are not without recourse. The Rues provide that civil liability arising
from other sources of obligation aside from delict will survive the death of the accused.
They could still file an independent civil action based on Art. 2176 of the Civil Code
(quasi-delict, reckless imprudence). This may be filed against the heirs or the estate. (⅘
pts)
20. What is the form of a complaint or information? When is a complaint or

information sufficient? (5%) (ANSWER ONLY GOT 4 / 5 so I added the other requisites)
● THE COMPLAINT OR INFORMATION SHALL BE
1. In writing
2. Name of People of the Philippines
3. Against all persons who appear to be responsible for the offense involved.
● SUFFICIENCY OF COMPLAINT OR INFORMATION (Rule 110, Sec 6).

(NDANAP)
1. Name of the accused
a. Name or surname
b. Appellation or nickname
c. Fictitious name, if true name is unknown
2. Designation of the offense given by the statute
a. Designation of the offense given by the statute
b. Acts or omissions constituting the same
c. Qualifying and aggravating circumstances
3. Acts and omissions complained of as constituting the offense
a. State in ordinary and concise language (Sec 9)
i. To enable ordinary person to under nature and cause of accusation
against him
ii. Prepare for his defense.
4. Name of offended party
a. In case of wrongful designation
i. If generic (money): variance will lead to acquittal.
ii. If specific (jewelry) : variance is immaterial
5. Approximate date of the commission of the offense
a. GR: Not necessary to state particular date (on or about)
EXC:
b. Material ingredient of the offense
i. In statutory rape, to prove age of victim
c. Gap should be reasonable
6. Place where offense was committee
a. GR: No need to state
b. EXC: place is essential element of crime
i. Violation of domicile
ii. Trespass to dwelling
21. While you are offering your documentary evidence, the opposing counsel
objected to the admission of Exhibit B. The trial court sustained the objection
and refused to budge despite your motion for reconsideration. The document
is crucial to your cause of action. What should you do? (5%)
● Tender of excluded evidence.
● Rules provide that in a tender of excluded evidence, the excluded evidence will still be
made part of the record. Availing of the remedy will enable us to raise the same on
appeal because the excluded evidence will still form part of the records of the case. This
will give the appellate court the opportunity to review whether such evidence was
properly excluded and the reason for offering such evidence.
22. During the trial for violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act, the prosecution
offered in evidence a photocopy of the marked P100.00 bills used in the buybust
operation. Doroy objected thereto on the ground that the best evidence rule
prohibits the introduction of secondary evidence in lieu of the original.
(a) Is the photocopy real (object) evidence or documentary evidence?

It is a REAL/OBJECT EVIDENCE.
Object evidence is the kind of evidence which is addressed to the senses of the Court. On
the other hand, documentary evidence is the kind of evidence presented to prove its contents. In
this case, the bills are being offered NOT to prove its contents but merely to prove its MERE
EXISTENCE.
(b) Is the photocopy admissible in evidence? (5 pts.)

ANS: No, the photocopy is NOT admissible in evidence.
RATIO: Since it is an object evidence, the Best Evidence Rule is NOT applicable. The
best evidence rule only applies to documentary evidence. However, the rules still provide that
for object evidence, the original of thing itself must still be exhibited to the court (4 pts)
23. Re judicial affidavit rule: (n.b. Score is only 4 / 5 so I added everything
pertinent to the qs).
A: To all actions, proceedings, and incidents requiring the reception of evidence before:
1. The Metropolitan Trial Courts, the Municipal Trial Courts in Cities, the Municipal Trial
Courts, the Municipal Circuit Trial Courts, and the Shari' a Circuit Courts but shall not
apply to small claims cases under A.M. 08-8-7-SC;
2. The Regional Trial Courts and the Shari'a District Courts;
3. The Sandiganbayan, the Court of Tax Appeals, the Court of Appeals, and the Shari'a
Appellate Courts;
4. The investigating officers and bodies authorized by the Supreme Court to receive
evidence, including the Integrated Bar of the Philippine (IBP); and
5. The special courts and quasi-judicial bodies, whose rules of procedure are subject to
disapproval of the Supreme Court, insofar as their existing rules of procedure contravene
the provisions of this Rule.
APPLICABILITY IN CRIMINAL CASES:

1. Where the maximum of the imposable penalty does not exceed six years.
2. Where the accused agrees to the use of judicial affidavits, irrespective of the penalty
involved; or
3. With respect to the civil aspect of the actions, whatever the penalties involved are.
B. When should the judicial affidavit be submitted and what should be attached
thereto?
a. The Judicial Affidavit takes the place of direct examination and must be
submitted 5 days before the scheduled pre-trial or preliminary conference. It
must contain
i. the name, age, residence or business address, and occupation of the
witness;
ii. The name and address of the lawyer who conducts or supervises the
examination of the witness and the place where the examination is being
held;
iii. A statement that the witness is answering the questions asked of him,
fully conscious that he does so under oath, and that he may face criminal
liability for false testimony or perjury;
iv. Questions asked of the witness and his corresponding answers,
consecutively numbered, that:
1. Show the circumstances under which the witness acquired the
facts upon which he testifies;
2. Elicit from him those facts which are relevant to the issues that the
case presents; and
3. Identify the attached documentary and object evidence and
establish their authenticity in accordance with the Rules of Court;
v. The signature of the witness over his printed name; and
vi. A jurat with the signature of the notary public who administers the oath
or an officer who is authorized by law to administer the same.
vii. Name and address of the lawyer.
b. In addition, all the object/documentary evidence must also be attached.
C. What is the effect of its non-submission? (5 pts.).

a. Failure to submit will prevent the party from presenting the said witness in court.
The rules also provide that in criminal cases, no further judicial affidavit/
evidence will be admitted at the trial.
LN6D3RFF
24. Golem barged into the house of Lucy, tied her up and robbed her of money and
jewelry. Then Golem brought lnday, Lucy's maid, to a bedroom where he raped
her. Lucy could hear lnday pleading, "Huwag! Maawa ka sa akin!" After raping
lnday, Golem fled from the house with the loot. lnday untied Lucy, rushed to the
police station and told P01 Rey Habag what happened - the robbery and rape
committed by Golem. P01 Habag noticed that lnday was hysterical and on the verge
of collapse. Golem was charged with robbery with rape. During the trial, lnday
could no longer be located. If the prosecution presents P01 Habag to testify on
what lnday told him, would such testimony be hearsay? (5 %}
● Yes, the testimony is hearsay. However, since it is part of RES GESTAE, it would still be
admissible nonetheless.
● According to the Rules of Court, a statement made during a startling occurrence or
immediately prior or subsequent thereto IS considered part of the rest gestate and
thus, an exception to the hearsay rule.
● In this case, Inday made the statement after she has been raped. Based on the testimony
of PO1 Habag, Inday was still hysterical and on the verge of collapse. From such, it is
obvious that Inday is still under the influence of the startling occurrence.
● Therefore, her statement is part of res gestae. PO1 Habag may testify on suich matter
even without Inday.
25. Senator Ely Pante was charged with plunder before the Sandiganbayan. After
the prosecution finished the presentation of its evidence, he filed a demurrer to
evidence on the ground that the prosecution failed to prove his guilt beyond
reasonable doubt. The Sandiganbayan denied his demurrer to evidence. Pante
filed a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court to annul and set aside the
Sandiganbayan order. The OSG sought the dismissal of the petition, contending
that under the rules, there is no remedy from an order denying a demurrer to
evidence before judgment. Is the OSG correct? How should the Supreme Court
resolve the petition? (5 %}
A: The OSG is not correct. As a general rule, an order denying a demurrer to evidence is NOT
subject to appeal or certiorari.
However, pursuant to the case of Gloria Arroyo v. SB, an order denying a demurrer can
be a subject of a Rule 65 petition if tainted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or
excess of jurisdiction.
In the case at bar, the SC must first determine if the SB acted with grave abuse in
denying the demurrer. If it did, then Rule 65 is a proper remedy. If not, then Rule 65 is
unavailing.
2015 Finals
Multiple Choice. Choose the correct answer. (2% each)

1. One of the following items is not considered during pre-trial in criminal
cases:
a. Plea bargaining
b. Waiver of objections to admissibility of evidence
c. Dismissal of the information
d. Modification of the order of trial if the accused admits the charge but interposes a
lawful defense
2. The court may motu proprio quash a complaint or information on the

ground that
a. The facts charged do not constitute an offense.
b. The court trying the case has no jurisdiction over the offense charged.
c. The court trying the case has no jurisdiction over the person of the accused
d. The criminal action or liability has been extinguished.
3. When the civil action has been filed separately and trial thereof has not yet
commenced,
a. It should always proceed independently of the criminal action
b. It has no effect on the criminal action
c. It is subject to the discretion of the court
d. It may be consolidated with the criminal action
4. This is an exception to the rule that a complaint or information must charge

only one offense.
a. When the second offense is an attempt to commit or a frustration of the first
offense.
b. When the evidence ot support a conviction for one offense would be sufficient to
warrant a conviction for the other.
c. When the law prescribes a single punishment for various offenses.
d. When the second offense necessarily includes or is necessarily included in the
first offense.
5. The accused’s right against double jeopardy cannot be invoked when the
a. Prosecution appeals from a judgment of conviction in the same case
b. Accused is charged with the same offense in two separate pending cases
c. Charge against the accused was dismissed before arraignment
d. Accused is prosecuted anew for the same offense after he has been accused or
acquitted from such offense.

a. The accused was asked to wear the hat recovered at the scene of the crime
b. Blood sample of accused is taken for DNA testing to be used as basis of
comparison with blood samples recovered at the place where the killing took
place.
c. The accused was asked to stand in the course of the testimony of a prosecution
witness for identification.
d. The accused after entering of a plea of not guilty to the charge is
ordered by the court to make a statement in answer to the allegations
in the information.
7. While walking in a park, Fe accosted Kiko and shouted: “You were the
person who raped me!” The remarks were made in the presence of a lot of
people. Yet Kiko left hurriedly without saying a word. Fe ran after him but
Kiko ran as fast as he could and disappeared.
a. There could be an express admission by Kiko because of his flight
b. There could be an implied judicial admission by silence under the circumstances
c. There could be an implied admission under the facts
d. There is no admission by Kiko under the facts.

a. The contents of the records of other cases
b. The appreciation of one judge of the testimony of a certain witness on the same
matter
c. The practice of banks in conducting background checks on borrowers
d. The age of the victim in a rape case.

a. The order granting DNA testing is appealable
b. A court order is not always required before undertaking DNA Testing
c. The result of DNA testing is automatically admitted as evidence in the court in
d. The DNA profile of a person is open to public scrutiny.
10. Which of the following is a false statement as to how authenticity of an

electronic document is proven:
a. By evidence that it had been digitally signed by the person purported to have
signed the same
b. By other evidence showing its integrity and reliability to the satisfaction of the
judge.
c. By evidence of identification pursuant to Rule 132 of the Rules of
Court.
d. By evidence that the appropriate security procedures or devices were applied to
the document.
11. In separate criminal cases, Tom and Jerry were charged with murder in RTC
Muntinlupa, Tom in Branch 204 and Jerry in Branch 206. In both cases, the
trial courts issued warrants of arrest against the accused. Tom filed a
motion to quash warrant of arrest, while Jerry filed a motion for admission
to bail. How should the courts resolve said motions? (5%)
With respect to Jerry, whether or not he will be admitted to bail depends on whether evidence of
guilt is strong. Murder is punishable with reclusion perpetua; thus, it is a non-bailable offense.
Jerry, may however be admitted bail if after hearing he is able to show that evidence of his guilt
is not strong. He cannot avail of it as a matter of right.
With respect to Tom, he may be permitted to file a motion to quash the arrest warrant for
absence or lack of probable cause, or toher formal defect in its issuance.
Although the facts do not indicate that Tom or Jerry have been arrested the RTC can
nevertheless act on these motions. Jurisprudence provides that the court can rule on a motion to
admit to bail and a motion to quash although the accused is still at large. Jurisdiction over their
person is deemed conferred by the appearance of their counsel, albeit for the limited purpose of
resolving these matters.
Also, it is not required that they be arraigned before they can avail of these recourses. (4pts
only)
12. Efren was lawfully arrested without a warrant involving homicide an offense
which requires a preliminary investigation. What is the procedure that must
be followed regarding a preliminary investigation. What is the procedure
that must be followed regarding the filling of the information, and Efren’s
rights before and after the information is filed? (5%)
Before an information may be filed, an inquest* proceeding must be conducted by an inquest

prosecutor. In the absence of an inquest prosecutor, the complainant or public officer in charge
with the enforcement of the law violated may file the information.
Before the information is filed, however, Efren may request for a preliminary investigation to be
conducted, provided he signs a waiver of his rights in Art. 125 of the RPC.
After he learns that the information has been filed, Efren has 5 days within which to ask for a
preliminary investigation. Failure to make such request is deemed a waiver of his right to
request the same.
*An inquest proceeding is a summary proceeding to determine the propriety of holding a person
lawfully arrested without a warrant for trial (5pts)
13. Distinguish between motion to quash and demurrer to evidence–five

criteria (5pts)
Motion to quash and demurrer differ in the following respects:
First, their respective bases are different. In demurrer, the basis is insufficiency of evidence of
the prosecution in the criminal cases, while in motion to quash, it is a defect in the information
(no jurisdiction over offense/person, information does not charge an offense, information filed
by improper officer, charges more than one crime, contains a legal excuse, criminal liability
extinguished or double jeopardy, information not in proper form).
Second, demurrer should be filed after the prosecution has offered its evidence and has rested.
Motion to quash is before arraignment.
Third, demurrer may be with or without leave of court while a motion to quash does not require
leave of court.
Fourth, if demurrer is granted, the case is dismissed. If the motion to quash is granted, the case
is dismissed. If motion to quash is granted, the case may not be totally dismissed, as in some
grounds, the prosecution may be allowed to cure the defects (for, officer, charges more than 1
offense, etc)
Fifth, if demurrer is denied, the accused may present evidence. If he/she obtained prior leave
otherwise it is deemed waived. A denial cannot be appealed til after the resolution of the case,
and it cannot be the subject of a petition for certiorari before such time either. If a motion to
quash is denied, trial must proceed and accused can question denial on appeal together with the
merits of the case. The denial may be the subject of a petition for certiorari. (5pts)
14.
a. Who may appeal from a judgment or final order in a criminal case?
All parties may appeal, unless the accused will be placed in double jeopardy. Thus, as a general
rule, the prosecutor cannot appeal an acquittal. However, the prosecution may appeal when the
state was denied due process or the acquittal was ordered in GADALEJ. These are exceptional,
however. The offended party may also appeal the civil aspect (only) of the judgment/order. The
accused can always appeal.
b. If the CA imposes the penalty of reclusion perpetua, how will the

accused have the judgment reviewed? (5%)
The accused should appeal to the Supreme Court by filing a Notice of Appeal in the CA. This is
an exception to the rule that one can only appeal to the SC through rule 45.
(5 pts)
15. -
a. Suppose the CA imposes a penalty lower than reclusion perpetua or
life imprisonment, what is the mode of appeal?
If the CA imposes a penalty lower than reclusion perpetua, the remedy is to appeal to the SC
under Rule 45, a petition for review on certiorari filed with the SC.
b. May a judgment of acquittal be appealed? (5%)

As a general, an acquittal cannot be appealed, since it will place the accused in double jeopardy.
Exceptionally, the State may be allowed to appeal when it was deprived of due process, or the
acquittal was attended with GADALEJ. The offended party may appeal the civil aspect only.
(5pts)
16. A was charged with violation of the anti-graft law, but during trial, estafa
through falsification of public documents was proved. B was charged with
qualified theft, but theft was proved. C was charged with acts of
lasciviousness but rape was proved. In each case, what crime must be
accused be convicted of? State the variance doctrine. (5%)
The variance doctrine provides that an accused may be convicted of the offense charged if the
offense proved necessarily includes the offense charged, or the offense charged constitutes a
frustration or attempt of the offense proved. It further provides that an accused mey be
convicted of the offense proved if it is necessarily included in the offense charged or constitutes
an attempt or frustration of the offense charged.
Simply stated, the accused will be convicted of the lighter offense between the offense charged
and that proved. Following this principle B should be convicted of theft, the crime proved since
it is included in the crime charged (theft and qualified theft share the common elements except
the qualifying circumstances). C can only be convicted of acts of lasciviousness, even if rape was
proved. Rape and Acts of Lasciviousness, even if rape was proved. Rape and Acts of
lasciviousness share common elements with the exception of penile penetration of the vaginal,
anal or oral orifice and object penetration of the vagina or anus. To convict C of rape would
violate his/her right to be informed of the charges against him / her. A however cannot be
convicted because estafa and the offenses under the anti-graft law do not share common
elements. Hence, one is not necessarily included does not necessarily include the other.
17. Mando Rucot was charged with robbery for snatching a cell phone from Vic
Tima. At the arraignment, Mando pleaded guilty to the lesser offense of
theft. What are the requisites for the grant of such motion? Suppose he
pleaded not guilty to robbery, can he still plead guilty to theft afterwards?
(5%)
Unless the prosecutor and the offended party allow Mando to plead to a lower offense, he cannot
do so. He may also be allowed to do so with the consent of the prosecutor alone when the
offended party fails to appear for plea bargaining after being notified. In this case, the court will
enter a plea of “not guilty” of robbery on his behalf.
Provided that the consent of the prosecutor and the offended party is given the accused may be
permitted to withdraw his plea before trial begins. Under the same conditions, Mando may be
permitted to withdraw his appeal after trial but before judgment in the discretion of the court.
18. While you are offering your documentary evidence, the opposing counsel
objected to the admission of Exhibit B. The trial court sustained the
objection and refused to budge despite your motion for reconsideration. The
document is crucial to your cause of action. What should you do? (5%)
I would make a tender of excluded evidence by attaching the same to the record and declaring
the purpose of such evidence. This is necessary in order to demonstrate to the court the
importance of the documenta nd to preserve the record of the appeal.
When the trial court decides the case, the exclusion of Exhibit B should be raised as an error
along with the other substantive errors/ merits of the case. If the court acted with grave abuse of
discretion, it would be possible to file for certiorari under Rule 65.
offered in evidence a photocopy marked P100.00 bills used in the buy-bust
operation. Accused Doroy objected thereto on the ground that the best
evidence rule prohibits the introduction of secondary evidence in lieu of the
original.
a. Is the photocopy real (object evidence or documentary evidence?
The bills are object evidence. Thus, the best evidence rule finds no application. Object evidence
are those which are addressed to the senses of the court, while documentary evidence are those
offered as proof of their content. Here, the bills are not presented as proof of their content. Thus,
the bills are object evidence.
b. Is the photocopy admissible in evidence? (5pts)

As a rule, the actual object should be introduced; however, a photocopy of the object is not
proscribed. As long as a witness is able to authenticate the object by declaring that it is a copy of
the actual bills, then the photocopies can be introduced. The other party may also waive the
objection he/she might have to the introduction of the copies.
20. What are the requisites for admissibility of evidence? In a prosecution
for homicide, Alma testified that Sam killed the victim bcause that is what
her boyfriend Bong told her. Applying the requisites as queried above, is
Alma’s testimony admissible? (5pts)
In order for evidence to be admissible, it must be relevant and competent. Evidence is relevant
when it tends in a reasonable degree to establish the fact in issue. On the other hand, evidence is
competent when it is not excluded by the law or rules.
Although Alma’s testimony may be relevant because it tends to establish the fact of killing,
which is the issue in homicide, it is not competent. Alma’s testimony is hearsay, since she is not
testifying based on personal knowledge. The rules of court expressly provide that hearsay
evidence is inadmissible. Thus, Alma’s testimony is inadmissible.
21. Golem barged into the house of Lucy, tied her up and robbed her of money
and jewelry. Then Golem brought Inday, Lucy’s maid, to a bedroom where
he raped her. Lucy could hear Inday pleading, “Huwag! Maawa ka sa akin!”
After raping Inday, Golem fled from the house with the loot. Inday untied
Lucy, rushed to the police station and told PO1 Rey Habag what
happened–the robbery and rape committed by Golem. PO1 Habag noticed
that Inday hysterical and on the verge of collapse. Golem was charged with
robbery with rape. During the trial, Inday could no longer be located. If the
prosecution presents PO1 Habag to testify on what Inday told him, would
such testimony be hearsay? (5%)
PO1’s testimony can be admitted as it falls under the res gestae exception to the hearsay
rule. In order to trigger the application of the exception, it is necessary that the declarant
make the statement during or immediately after a startling event. Although the rules
state that the declaration/statement should be “immediately” after the startling
occurrence, jurisprudence provides that statements made while the startling occurrence
was still influencing the declarant’s mental state.
Here, PO1 Habag noticed that Inday was “hysterical and on the verge of collapse.”
Evidently, the rape continued to have an effect on her mental state and continued to
influence her. Thus, since INday made the statements in a hysterical state right after the
startling occurrence of rape, PO1 Habag should be permitted to testify regarding what
Inday told him.
22.Seller A filed a complaint against buyer B for P350,000.00, the unpaid

balance of the car bought by and delivered to B. Although the deed of sale
stipulated a contract price of P750,000.00, the actual oral agreement was B
to pay only P400,000.00 an amount already paid. The amount written on
the deed of sale was due to inadvertence. B alleged in his answer that there
was a mistake in the writing and it does not reflect the true intention of the
parties. If B presents evidence to modify the written agreement, will it
violate the parol evidence rule? (5%)
No, this is an exception to the parol evidence rule. As a general rule, when the terms of
an agreement have been reduced to writing, there can be no evidence of such agreement
between the parties and their assigns/successors in interest other than the writing itself.
However, parol evidence may be adduced in order to explain or even modify the
agreement when it is alleged that there is 1) a mistake or imperfection in the drafting of
the writing; 2) it fails to express the true intention of the parties; 3) the validity of the
instrument is questioned; and 4) there is a subsequent agreement by the parties.
Here, the case falls under the first and second exceptions. B alleged that there was a
mistake in the written amount, which caused the instrument to fail to conform with the
agreement of the parties. Thus, B should be permitted to produce evidence aliunde, as an
exception to the parol evidence rule.
23.Susan is the child of the spouses Ben and Cindy. Ben sued his wife for
judicial declaration of nullity of marriage under Art. 36 the Family Code.
The following were supposed to testify against Cindy–Ben, Susan, and Val, a
doctor of medicine who used to treat Cindy–but Cindy objected on the
following grounds:
a. Ben cannot testify against her because of the rule on marital
communications privilege.
Ben can testify against her, since one of the exceptions to the marital privilege rule is when one
spouse sues the other in a civil case. A case for annulment is a civil case filed by Ben against
Cindy; therefore he can testify.
b. Susan cannot testify against her because of the doctrine of parental

privilege.
Susan can testify if she waives the filial privilege. Notably, the rule on filial privilege provides
that a person may not be compelled to testify against one’s ascendants or descendants. The
privilege is therefore Susan’s to claim. It cannot be invoked by Cindy.
c. Val cannot testify against her because of the doctrine of privileged

communication between doctor and patient. Rule on Cindy’s
objections (5pts)
Val can take the stand as an expert but he may not testify as to privileged matters. The rules
provide that a person practicing medicine cannot testify in a civil case on matters learned in
confidence from the patient in the course of treatment in his/her professional capacity which
were necessary to act in such capacity, and would tend to blacken the patient’s reputation. Thus,
Val cannot testify on matters learned from Cindy in his professional capacity, which enabled him
to act as such, and which would blacken her reputation. Notably, the privilege belongs to Cindy.
He may, however, testify as an expert witness. He may answer hypothetical questions. He may
also testify as to non-privileged matters. (4pts out of 5pts total for all questions)
24.Peping filed a statement of claim against Walter with the Metropolitan Tiral
Court of Manila to collect the balance of his backwages in the amount of
P97,000.00 which Walter was supposed to pay him as a result of his illegal
dismissal from employment in Walter’s company. In his verified response,
Walter moved for the dismissal of the complaint on the ground that it is not
within the jurisdiction of the small claims court, since it arose from an
employer-relationship, and hence, should have been filed with the NLRC.
Instead of dismissing the complaint, the MeTC set the case for hearing.
During the hearing, Walter insisted that the court has no jurisdiction over
the claim. Ignoring Walter’s plea, the court rendered judgment in Peping’s
favor and immediately ordered entry of judgment since the judgment is final
and executory under the Rule on Small Claims Cases. Does Walter have any
remedy against the judgment? (5%)
The rules on small claims provide that the judgments rendered under such rule are final and
unappealable. Since appeal is not available, Walter can file a petition for certiorari under Rule
65 since there is no plain, speedy, or adequate remedy.
Walter is unlikely to succeed, however, since money claims are well within the jurisdiction of the
MeTC. (4pts out of 5pts)
25.The judge instructed the parties to simultaneously submit the judicial

affidavits of their witnesses. Counsel for plaintiff objected saying that his
would be tantamount to having his right to cross-examine the witnesses
forfeited. Is plaintiff’s counsel correct? (5%)
Plaintiff’s counsel is incorrect. The judicial affidavit rule states that the judicial affidavits will
take the place only of the direct testimony. It further provides that the adverse parties retain the
right to cross examine the witness who executes the judicial affidavit at trial. (5pts)
26.True or False (5%)

a. A petition for writ of kalikasan may be filed with the RTC, CA, or SC. FALSE
b. Under the efficient use of paper rule, a party must file five (5) copies of his
pleading with the SC. TRUE
c. A dispute involving residents of different barangays within the same city or
municipality should be brought in the barangay where the complainant resides.
FALSE
d. Under the rule on summary procedure, a motion to dismiss is not prohibited.
TRUE
e. A petition for writ of continuing mandamus must be resolved within 90 days
from filing. FALSE
2014 Finals
Multiple Choice. Choose the correct answer. (2 % each)
1. When the civil action has been filed separately and trial thereof has not yet
commenced,
A. it should always proceed independently of the criminal action
B. it has no effect on the criminal action
C. it is subject to the discretion of the court
D. it may be consolidated with the criminal action
2. This is an exception to the rule that a complaint or information must charge

only one offense.
A. When the second offense is an attempt to commit or a frustration of the first
offense.
B. When the evidence to support a conviction for one offense would be sufficient to
warrant a conviction for the other.
C. When the law prescribes a single punishment for various offenses.
D. When the second offense necessarily includes or is necessarily included in the
first offense.
3. Elma, 15-years old, was abducted in Talisay, Cebu and brought to Guimaras
where she was raped by Rading and Pepe. Afterwards, the culprits fled to
Dinagat island. Before the abduction, they planned how to execute it while
they were in Marikina. Where should the complaint for abduction with rape
be filed?
A. Guimaras because that is where the rape, which was the purpose of the
abduction, was committed.
B. Marikina, since the planning was done there.
C. Dinagat, because they escaped to that island so they will not get caught.
D. Either Talisay or Guimaras.

A. the accused after entering of a plea of not guilty to the charge is
ordered by the court to make a statement in answer to the allegations
in the information
B. the accused was asked to wear the hat recovered at the scene of the crime.
C. blood sample of accused is taken for DNA testing to be used as basis of
comparison with blood samples recovered at the place where the killing took
place.
D. the accused was asked to stand in the course of the testimony of a prosecution
witness for identification.
5. Ted was acquitted of murder by the RTC of Naga City, on the ground that he
did not commit the crime charged. The heirs of the victim filed a civil case to
recover damages against Ted. Will the case prosper?
A. No, because such acquittal forecloses any civil liability against the
accused, unless based on another source of obligation.
B. Yes, because the heirs have a right to recover damages, civil liability not having
been extinguished by his acquittal
C. No, because the heirs do not have enough evidence to make Ted civilly liable,
considering the quantum of evidence required in civil cases.
D. Yes, because the civil case for damages can be filed by the heirs in a separate
action
6. While walking in a park, Gina accosted Tony and shouted: "You were the
person who raped me!" The remarks were made in the presence of a lot of
people. Yet Tony left hurriedly without saying a word. Gina ran after him
but Tony ran as fast as he could and disappeared.
A. There could be an express admission by Tony because of his flight.
B. There is no admission by Tony under the facts.
C. There could be an implied judicial admission by silence under the circumstances.
D. There could be an implied admission under the facts.

A. the age of the victim in a rape case
B. the contents of the records of other cases
C. the appreciation of one judge of the testimony of a certain witness on the same
matter
D. the practice of banks in conducting background checks on borrowers
8. The following is not a ground for the discharge of an accused to be a state

witness:
A. There is absolute necessity for the testimony of the accused whose discharge is
requested.
B. There is no other direct evidence available for the proper prosecution of the
offense committed, except the testimony said accused
C. Said accused appears to be the least guilty.
D. The testimony of said accused can be substantially corroborated on its material
points.
9. The following statement is true as regards DNA testing:

C. The result of DNA testing is automatically admitted as evidence in the court in
10. Which of the following is the corpus delicti?
A. ashes of a bombed house
B. physical body of the deceased
C. fact of the commission of the crime
D. shabu seized during buy-bust operation
arrest? (5 pts.)
The distinctions between a search warrant and a warrant of arrest are as follows: first, as to the
nature and contents of a search warrant, it must show that the things provided therein must
relate to an unlawful activity, whereas in a warrant of arrest, it must be based on probable cause
that a crime has been committed and that the person named therein is probably guilty thereof.
As to the judicial requirements before it is issued, for a search warrant, the judge must
personally examine the affiant and witnesses by asking searching questions regarding their
allegations, while such is not necessary for the issuance of a warrant of arrest, wherein the judge
need only satisfy himself, based on the records elevated to him, that there is probable cause for
him to issue a warrant of arrest. Third, as to their respective duration, a search warrant is valid
for 10 days, while a warrant of arrest is valid until arrest is executed or such warrant is recalled.
Fourth, as to the manner of their execution, a search warrant is generally executed during the
day, while a warrant of arrest may be executed on any day, at any time of day or night. (5 pts)
12. a. Nilo was charged for allegedly committing the crime of frustrated
murder. However, before arraignment, the victim died. The prosecution
moved for the amendment of the information to murder. Nilo objected,
arguing that the amendment of the information will place him in double
jeopardy. Is his contention tenable? (3%)
His contention is not tenable as the amendment of the information will not place him in double
jeopardy. For double jeopardy to operate, the following requisites must concur: first, that there
is a competent court, second, there is a valid complaint or information, third, there is a valid
plea, and fourth, the accused is either convicted, acquitted, or the case is dismissed without his
express consent. Here, the amendment is to be done before arraignment, and therefore before
he enters a valid plea. Ultimately, since the third and fourth requisites for double jeopardy to
operate are lacking, Nilo’s contention is untenable. (3 pts)
b. May the amendment of the information still be done after the accused had
entered his plea? (2%)
Yes, the amendment of the information may still be done after the accused had entered his plea,
provided three requirements are met: first, that it is with leave of court, second, it is limited to a
formal amendment, and third, that it will cause no prejudice to the accused. Moreover,
jurisprudence provides that an amendment that will not change the theory, as well as the
evidence to be presented by the accused is within these parameters. Verily, in this case, an
amendment from frustrated murder to murder after Nilo had entered his plea is proper. (2 pts)
13. Amy was the victim of abduction committed by Max. She is 21 years old and
does not suffer from any physical or mental disability or incapacity. If she
chooses not to file any complaint against Max, who can file such complaint?
Suppose Amy is only 13 years old and does not wish to file a complaint, what
will be your answer? (5%)
On the first set of facts where Amy is 21 and does not suffer from any physical or mental
disability, if she chooses not to file any complaint against Max, no one else can file the
complaint. The rules provide that for private crimes, such as that of abduction, the following can
file the complaint: (1) the offended woman, (2) the parents, grandparents or guardian, and (3)
the State, should the minor have no known parents or guardians. The rules further qualify that
such enumeration is successively applied to the exclusion of the others, and that those falling in
number two can only directly file when the offended party is a minor or is suffering from any
physical or mental disability. Therefore, since in the first set of facts, Amy is rather fit to file by
herself, no one else can file the complaint if she chooses not to do so.
If Amy was only 13 and she did not wish to file a complaint, her parents, grandparents or
guardians can file such complaint. As provided above, the law no grants them the opportunity to
directly file the complaint given that the offended party is a minor. (5 pts)
14. a. When is a preliminary investigation required to be conducted before the

filing of a complaint or information? (2%)
A preliminary investigation is required to be conducted for offenses that carry a penalty of at

least 4 years, 2 months and 1 day. (2 pts)
b. What is the remedy of one who was charged before the RTC of an offense
without preliminary investigation? (3%)
Since the right to a preliminary investigation is only a statutory right which is waivable, the
remedy should one be charged in the absence of such is not to move for the dismissal of the case.
It has been held that lack of such preliminary investigation does not even affect the court’s
jurisdiction. The remedy, therefore, is simply to ask for the conducting of a belated preliminary
investigation. (3 pts)
15. Pong and Bol were charged with murder. After the prosecution had rested
its case, Bol filed a demurrer to evidence, and filed the motion for leave to
file the pleading the next day. The trial court denied the demurrer to
evidence. Thus, only Ping and Pong were allowed to present their defense.
Afterwards, the court found the three accused guilty of murder. In his
appeal, Bol prayed that the case be remanded to the trial court because he
was denied his right to be heard. Should the appellate court grant his
motion? Explain. (5%)
Based on the facts, it is noteworthy to point out that Bol filed a demurrer to evidence a day
before he filed the motion for leave to file such pleading. As a rule, leave of court is not
indispensable in filing a demurrer to evidence in a criminal case. However, there will be an
important ramification should such leave not be secured and the motion is denied–and that
effect entails a waiver on the part of the accused to present his evidence. In this case since the
motion for leave to file the demurrer was not secured before the demurrer was resorted to, Bol is
deemed to have waived his right to present his evidence upon denial of his demurrer. Therefore,
the appellate court should not grant his motion. (5 pts)
16. a. Who may appeal from a judgment or final order in a criminal case? (2%)
As a general rule, only the accused can appeal from a judgment of conviction in a criminal case,
given that his acquittal cannot be appealed by the prosecution as such will amount to double
jeopardy. However such bar on the part of the prosecutor admits of exceptions, viz: when it is
deprived of due process; when there is grave abuse of discretion (on the p) amounting to lack or
excess of jurisdiction on the part of the court which is a proper subject of a petition for certiorari
and for the civil aspect of the case, the offended party is not prohibited from appealing. (2 pts)
b. Roy was convicted of rape with homicide and sentenced to reclusion

perpetua by the RTC. What is his remedy from the judgment? (3%)
Roy’s remedy is an ordinary appeal by filing a notice of appeal with the RTC that convicted him
of rape with homicide. According to the rules, if an accused is sentenced to reclusion perpetua,
appeal by filing a notice of appeal is the proper recourse. (3 pts)
c. If the CA, on appeal from an RTC conviction, increased the penalty to

reclusion perpetua, how will the accused have the judgment reviewed? (3%)
If the CA, after entertaining an appeal from an RTC conviction, imposed a penalty of reclusion
perpetua, he can have it reviewed by filing a notice of appeal with the CA, as mandated under the
Rules of Court. (3 pts)
d. Suppose the CA imposed a penalty lower than reclusion perpetua, what is

the mode of appeal? (2%)
If the CA imposed a penalty lower than reclusion perpetua, the mode of appeal is that of a
petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45. (2 pts)
17. Rey raped Mely and fled afterwards. Mely rushed to the police station and
told police officer Saclolo what had happened. Rey was charged with rape.
During the trial, Mely could no longer be located. If the prosecution presents
Saclolo to testify on what Mely had told him, would such testimony be
hearsay? Explain. (5 pts.)
As to what Mely had told Saclolo, the testimony surrounding such will be a hearsay. This is
because as to these matters, Saclolo has no personal knowledge. However, the fact that Mely
confided on Saclolo after the perpetration of the crime of rape can be testified on as such is an
independent relevant statement, which can be corroborative of other evidence against the
accused, Rey. (5 pts)
offered in evidence a photocopy of the marked P100.00 bills used in the
buy-bust operation. Accused Doro Gista objected thereto on the ground that
the best evidence rule prohibits the introduction of secondary evidence in
lieu of the original. (a) Is the documentary evidence? (b) Is the photocopy
admissible evidence? (5 pts.)
(a) The photocopy is a real (or object) evidence. According to the rules of court, documentary
evidence is that document the content of which is the subject of the inquiry. In this case, since it
is merely the existence of the marked bills that the photocopy is trying to show, the photocopy of
the bills is an object evidence. As such, the best evidence rule does not find application.
(b) As a general rule, the object evidence to be presented in court should be the actual object that
was involved in the offense being prosecuted on. This is subject to the exception where accused
waived his objection for its admissibility (or has made it a subject of stipulation during
pre-trial). In this case, since such exception is lacking, the photocopy of the object evidence is
not admissible. (5 pts)
19. What is the parol evidence rule and what are the exceptions thereto? (4 pts.)
The parole evidence rule provides that if the parties have reduced their agreement into writing,
there is no other evidence, called evidence aliunde, that can prove and add to the contents
therein. However, this is subject to the following exceptions: (1) intrinsic ambiguity, mistake or
imperfection in the agreement, (2) when the written agreement does not express the parties’
true intention, (3) when what is to be proved goes into the validity of the contract as when there
are allegations of fraud or vitiation of consent, and (4) when the parties or their successors
agreed on other terms subsequent to such agreement. (4pts)
20. Leni is the child of the spouses Bert and C~rol. Bert sued his wife for
judicial declaration of nullity of marriage under Art. 36 of the Family Code.
The following were supposed to testify against Carol - Bert, Leni, and Vince,
a doctor of medicine who used to treat Carol - but Carol objected on the
following grounds:
A. Bert cannot testify against her because of the rule on marital
communications privilege.
B. Leni cannot testify against her because of the doctrine of parental
privilege.
C. Vince cannot testify against her because of the doctrine of privileged
communication between doctor and patient.
Rule on Carol's objections. (5 pts.)
(a) Bert can testify against her as an exception to the rule on marital communications
privilege. This is because the Rules provide, as an exception to this privilege, inter alia, when it is
the spouse who sued the other in a civil case. In this case, since Bert sued his wife for declaration
of nullity under Art. 36, he can validly testify against his wife, Carol.
(b) Leni can testify because the parental (or filial) privilege belongs to the person who
will testify. Such doctrine merely provides that the witness cannot be compelled to testify against
his/her direct ascendants (or descendants, for that matter). Since the privilege belongs to her,
Leni can waive such privilege and testify against her mother.
(c) At the outset, Art. 36 of the Family Code underscores psychological capacity of either,
or both of the spouses. While there is a privileged communication between a doctor and his/her
patient, provided the communication relates to the treatment of the patient and such will
blacken the reputation of the latter, this privilege admits of exceptions, as when the testimony of
the doctor is sought as an expert witness, or if he is to testify about the examination he
conducted on the physical or mental health of the patient. In this case, since psychological
incapacity is in fact what is to be proved, Vince may testify against Carol. (5 pts)
21. What are the three rules in instituting novel remedies to protect
constitutional rights which took effect from 2007 to 2010? Explain the
purpose and state the date of effectivity of each one. (3%)
The three novel remedies to protect constitutional rights are as follows:
First, the Writ of Amparo, the rules of which are effective October 24, 2007, provides for
remedies for the protection from a violation, or a threatened violation, by a public officer or a
private individual of a person’s right to life, liberty and security. This includes protection from
extrajudicial killings and forced disappearances.
Second, the Writ of Habeas Data, the rules of which came to effect on February 2, 2008,
provides for remedies for the protection from a violation, or a threatened violation by a public
officer or a private individual tasked to safekeep data or information, of a person’s privacy in his
life, liberty and security.
Third, the Writ of Kalikasan, the rules of which are effective starting April 29, 2010, provides for
remedies for the protection of the environment. It is issued when damage to the environment is
felt or is threatened to be felt in two or more cities or municipalities. (3 pts)
22.May a witness refuse to answer questions material to the inquiry? Give the
general rule and at least two exceptions thereto. (3 pts.)
As a general rule, a witness may not refuse to answer questions material to the inquiry.
However, this admits of certain exceptions, such as when the answer will incriminate him, or
when the answer/fact elicited is privileged. (3 pts)
23.A man collapsed on the front door of Felix, with a knife planted on his back.
When Felix rushed to help him, he noticed that the man is his next door
neighbor Del. As Del lay dying in his arms, Felix asked him whether he had
something to do with the death of Victor, another neighbor, six months ago.
In a weak voice, Del whispered: "It was not me ... it was Ely Pante" Then he
died. Is Del's statement admissible as a dying declaration in a prosecution
against Ely Pante for tl1e death of Victor? (5 pts.)
Del’s statement is not admissible as a dying declaration. Among the requisites for a dying
declaration and for it to consequently be a valid exception to the hearsay rule, the declaration
must relate to the circumstances surrounding the death of the declarant. The ratio for this
exception to the hearsay rule is essentially to know the perpetrator of the declarant’s death. In
this case, since the declaration relates to the death of another from six months ago, it will not
qualify as a valid dying declaration. (5 pts)
24.The judge instructed the parties to simultaneously submit the judicial

affidavits of their witnesses. Counsel for plaintiff objected saying that this
would be tantamount to having his right to cross-examine the witnesses
forfeited. Is plaintiff's counsel correct? (5 pts.)
The plaintiff’s counsel is incorrect. Submission of judicial affidavits does not negate the right to
cross-examine the witness. In fact, save for those cases not falling within the scope of the
Judicial Affidavit Rule, the submission of judicial affidavits is mandatory. Besides, the
cross-examination will be properly conducted during the trial. (5 pts)
25.Van filed a statement of claim against Jem with the Metropolitan Trial Court
of Quezon City to collect the balance of his backwages in the amount of
P96,000.00 which Jem was supposed to pay him as a result of his illegal
dismissal from employment. Jem's company. In his verified response, Jem
moved for the dismissal of the complaint on the ground that it is not within
the jurisdiction of the small claims court, since it arose from an
employer-relationship, and hence, should have been filed with the National
Labor Relations Commission. Instead of dismissing the complaint, the
MeTC set the case for hearing. During the hearing, Jem insisted that the
court has no jurisdiction over the claim. Ignoring Jem's plea, the court
rendered judgment in Van's favor and immediately ordered entry of
judgment since the judgment is final and executory under the Rule on Small
Claims Cases. Does Jem have any remedy against the judgment? (5%)
The Rule on small claims applies in cases for collection of sum of money, the amount of such
claim not exceeding P100,000. In this case, the amount involved, which is P96,000, is well
within the jurisdiction of the small claims court. The fact that the claim arose from an
employer-employee relationship does not affect the court’s jurisdiction provided that the
amount of backwages, and the incidents relating to dismissal, are decided with finality and are
executory. This is because once the amount is established by the proper court, the claim for
recovery is now reduced to a sum of money case, wherein the former employer is now merely a
debtor of the claimant. All in all, the judgment by the small claims court is valid and is final and
executory. (4 pts only)
26.True or False (5 pts.):

A. Under the rule on summary procedure, a motion to dismiss is
prohibited. False.
B. Under the rules of procedure for environmental cases, a temporary
environmental protective order (TEPO) is effective for twenty (20)
days. False.
C. A petition for writ of kalikasan may be filed with the Regional Trial
Court. Court of Appeals or Supreme Court. False.
D. Under the efficient use of paper rule, a party must file five (5) copies
of his pleading with the Supreme Court. True.
E. A dispute involving residents of different barangays within the same
city or municipality should be brought in the barangay where the
complainant resides. False.

Magdi Lim

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Magdi Lim

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

2021 Finals

Multiple Choice. Choose the correct answer. (2% each)

1. A witness for the prosecution was asked on cross examination questions on

3. The following statements regarding the application of the rule on statement

4. Evidence of a previous conduct or similar acts at one time is not admissible

5. Which of the following is a true statement as regards DNA testing:

8. Which of the following statements is not procedurally sound?

9. When is bail a matter of right and when is it a matter of discretion? State

Bail is a matter of right:

- MATTER OF RIGHT: before or after conviction in the MTC, before conviction

All are inadmissible.

b. The sworn statement is also inadmissible. Based on the constitution and

a. RIFLE— The rifle is inadmissible as evidence as it was fruit of a poisonous tree.

Therefore, such defense is not tenable, since there would be no jeopardy.

As to personal examination, in a search warrant, there must be a personal examination by the

B. If not, what should the court have done? (5%)

20. What are the different modes of appealing a judgment of conviction in a

If the RTC renders a judgment of conviction:

If the CA renders a judgment of conviction:

B. Kit cannot testify against her because of the doctrine of parental

C. Don cannot testify against her because of the doctrine of privileged

It is excluded because: 1) there was no opportunity to cross-examine such statement; 2) it was

23.Re judicial affidavit rule:

B. When should the judicial affidavit be submitted and what should be

C. What is the effect of its non-submission? (5%)

C. Admissibility of circumstantial evidence

ADMISSIBILITY OF CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE—the underlying reason for

D. Inadmissibility of illegally obtained extrajudicial confession (5%).

INADMISSIBILITY OF ILLEGALLY OBTAINED EXTRAJUDICIAL

The four kinds of warrants under the Rule on Cybercrime are:

Multiple Choice. Choose the correct answer. (2 % each)

3. The following statements regarding the application of the survivor

5. Which of the following is a true statement as regards DNA testing:

8. Which of the following statements is not procedurally sound?

9. Compare the conditional examination of a defense witness to the

In conditional examination of a defense witness, it may be done before a judge, a

(See also 2021 Finals, #11)

A dying declaration is admissible when

Here, the declaration by Agaton was made when he was conscious of an

(See also 2021 Finals, # 13)

The test to determine whether an amendment is only formal is when it merely

An amendment may be deemed a formal one as when it merely eliminates

As to subject matter, a search warrant is issued to search a place or person and to

As to personal examination, a judge is required to personally examine the

(See also 2021 Finals, #18)

(See also 2021 Finals, #19)

20. What are the different modes of appealing a judgment of conviction in a

(See 2021 Finals, #20)

(See 2021 Finals, #21)

23.Re judicial affidavit rule:

(See also 2021 Finals, #23)

(See 2021 Finals, #25)

3. The following statements regarding the application of the survivor

6. The court may take judicial notice of the following:

7. Which of the following is a true statement as regards DNA testing:

8. The following is a not a ground for the discharge of an accused to be a state

DEFENSE WITNESS PROSECUTION WITNESS

SEC 12, Rule 119: Sec 15, Rule 119

a. Should his objection be sustained?

b. May he object to the question and on what ground? (5%)

13. Sarah and Mat are legally married.

a. Is the objection valid?

Motion to Quash Demurrer