TARLAC STATE UNIVERSITY

SCHOOL OF LAW
Tarlac City

MIDTERM EXAMINATION
IN CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
(1st Semester, S/Y 2023-2024)
BY:
DEAN SALVADOR N. MOYA II, LL.M., D.C.L.

STUDENT NUMBER:

INSTRUCTIONS:

1. Use Microsoft Word in answering your exam.

Paper size: Letter (8.5 x 11)

Font: Times New Roman
Font size: 12

2. Type your STUDENT NUMBER, school, subject, year level and section on the upper left
corner and put the page number on the lower right corner of every page.

3. Observe one (1) inch margin at the left and one-half (1/2) inch margin at the right.

4. Only your laptop and charger shall be on your desk. All other things shall be in front
as to be instructed by your proctor.

5. This test questionnaire must be returned to the proctor after answering the
examination.

6. This test questionnaire is confidential in character. Unauthorized reproduction of this

questionnaire shall give you a failure grade for this examination.

7. Browsing the internet and opening other files/documents/applications shall be

considered cheating and anyone caught doing such acts shall automatically get a
grade of 5.0 in this examination.

8. This examination is good for two (2) hours.

9. In answering, provide two (2) spaces after every number. Do not put your answer
for every question on a separate page.

10. After answering, save your document as PDF file in Filename format:

LASTNAME-SECTION-MIDTERMS (ex. MOYA-JD315-MIDTERMS)

11. Connect to the internet.

12. Send your PDF file

To: deanmoya.tsucrimpro@yahoo.com
Subject: LASTNAME-SECTION-MIDTERMS
(ex. MOYA-JD315-MIDTERMS)

13. Confirm with your proctor if your e-mail has been received.
 – QUESTIONS –

1. What is the Doctrine of Inordinate Delay? (10 points)

Answer: The Doctrine of Inordinate Delay refers to the accused has the right to a trial that
is not delayed in criminal procedure. It is also known as the right to speedy trial and its
fundamental principles that ensures an accused person of a crime is brought to trial
within a reasonable frame. It is stated in the Constitution under Article III that all
criminal prosecutions, the accused shall be presumed innocent until its proven guilty.

2. On July 6, 2017, the Office of the Ombudsman, through the Office of the Special
Prosecutor, filed two Informations with the Sandiganbayan charging City Vice Mayor
Jose Dima with violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No 3019 and Falsification of Public
Document under Article 171(2) of the Revised Penal Code in connection with the
appointment of one Amy Fuentes to the vacant position of Secretary to the Sangguniang
Panlungsod of Iriga City in 2014. At the time of the commission of the alleged offenses,
Jose Dima was the Vice Mayor of Iriga City, Camarines Sur, with salary grade 26 as
classified under R.A. No. 6758. Does the Sandiganbayan have jurisdiction over the
case? Explain. (10 points)

Answer: Yes. Based on the provided information, it appears that the case involves charged
of City Vice Mayor Jose Dima for violation of Section 3(e) of R.A no. 3019 or Anti-Graft and
Corrupt Practices and Falcification of Public Documents under Article 171 (2) of the
Revised Penal Code. Regarding the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan, it is a special court in
the Philippines that has jurisdiction over cases involving public officials with positions
specified under Republic Act No. 7975. This is to determine whether the Sandiganbayan has
jurisdiction in this case. In order to consider, we need the following; a) Position of the
accused. The Jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan depends on the position or rank and b)
Salary grade of the accused. It stated in the provided information that Jose Dima has the
salary grade of 26 and the Jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan is determined by the salary
grade of the accused.

3. On May 15, 1990, Utoyis was already running late for work. He parked and left his car at
a Loading and Unloading Zone. On May 17, 1990, a complaint was filed with the
prosecutor’s office against Utoyis by Utoy Parking Systems Corp. for violation of City
Ordinance No. 17. It was alleged that Utoyis illegally park and left his car unattended.
The Information was filed with the Municipal Trial Court on September 8, 1990. The
judge dismissed the case on the ground of prescription. Was the judge correct? Explain.
(10 points)

Answer: Yes. Based on the information provided, the incident date happened on May
15,1990 and the complaint was filed on May 17,1990 and the Information filed in the court
was September 8,1990. So from May 15,1990 to September 8,1990 which is only 4 months
passed. In the given information, it does not appear that the judges dismissal is on the
grounds that the prescription was correct. A case filed within a few months after the alleged
violation would not be typically be dismissed by this basis. Specifically, the judges decisions
refers to the rules related which is under Section 1 Rule 110 of the Rules of Court that the
criminal shall be instituted under this following periods. 1) Offenses prescribed by Special
Laws and 2) Offenses not denied by Special Laws. In this scenario,if City Ordinance no. 17
defines and penalizes the offenses the prescription period should be determine by the
provisions of the ordinance.

4. Distinguish executive and judicial determination of probable cause. (10 points)

2
 Answer: Executive and judicial determination of probable cause refers to different
processes. By which the legality of a search or an arrest is evaluated. The distinction
lies in who is making the determination of probable cause. The executive determination
is made by law enforcement officers in the field. While the Judicial determination
involves presenting evidence to a judge or for an independent assessment before a
warrant is issued.

5. Pepita was awakened by a commotion coming from a condo unit next to hers. Alarmed,
she called up the nearby police station. PO1 Pepite and PO2 Pepiti proceeded to the
condo unit identified by Pepita. PO1 Pepite knocked at the door and when a man
opened the door, PO1 Pepite and his companions introduced themselves as police
officers. The man readily identified himself as Pepito and gestured them to come in.
Inside, the police officers saw a young lady with her nose bleeding and face swollen.
Asked by PO2 Pepiti what happened, the lady responded that she was beaten up by
Pepito. The police officers arrested Pepito and brought him and the young lady back to
the police station. Kiwi took the young lady’s statement who identified herself as AA.
She narrated that she is a sixteen-year-old high school student; that previous to the
incident, she had sexual intercourse with Pepito at least five times on different
occasions and she was paid Php 5,000.00 each time and it was the first time that Pepito
physically hurt her. PO2 Pepiti detained Pepito at the station’s jail. After the inquest
proceeding, the prosecutor filed an information court for violation of R.A. No. 9262 for
physical violence and five separate information for violation of R.A. No.7610. Pepito’s
lawyer filed a motion to be admitted to bail but the court issued an order that approval
of his bail bond shall be made only after his arraignment. After his release from
detention on bail, can Pepito still question the validity of his arrest? Explain. (10
points)

Answer: Yes, he can still question the validity of his arrest even after his release from
detention on bail. The fact that he has been released on bail does not necessarily waive his
right to challenge the legality of his arrest.

6. On April 25, 1998, Jangga loaned from Jango Php 1, 000, 000.00. As security for the
payment of the loan, Jangga issued two (2) checks in the amount of Php 500, 000.00
each. Upon maturity of the loan, Jangga failed to pay prompting Jango to present the
checks to the bank. The bank dishonored the checks for insufficiency of funds. Jango
filed a case for violation of B.P. 22. Can Jango reserve his right to file an independent
civil action? Explain. (10 points)

Answer: No. In this case Jango is not required to file a separate civil action because it is
automatically included in criminal case. Under Rule 111 Section 1 of the Rules of Court of
the Philippines states that when a criminal action is instituted the civil action for the
recovery of civil liability arising from the offense charged shall be deemed instituted with
the criminal action unless the offended party waives the civil action. In this case since
Jango filed a case for violation of BP 22 the civil action for the recovery of the amount of the
checks is already deemed instituted along with the criminal case. Therefore Jango cannot opt
to pursue the civil aspects of the case. However if he reserved his right to file an
independent civil action he must he must clearly state so. If he failed the the civil aspects of
the case will be considered instituted with the criminal action.

3
 7. What is the effect of the death of the accused on his civil and criminal liabilities
pending appeal of his case? Explain. (10 points)
Answer: The effect of the death of the accused on his civil and criminal liabilities
pending appeal of his case depends on the Jurisdiction. In criminal liabilities
under pending approval that if the accused dies while they have criminal case
pending the criminal liabilities is typically extinguished and terminated because
these liabilities are considered criminal sentence and they are basically imposed
in the criminal conviction.
8. On November 3, 2008, an informant relayed to SPO2 Coco that a man named Tanggol
was transporting and selling marijuana in Brgy. San Juan, Mexico, Pampanga. SPO2 Coco
and PO1 Martin were instructed to conduct surveillance on the suspect. On November
4, 2008, at about 4:30 p.m., Tanggol was onboard a van that was flagged down by the
police officers. They declared that they were conducting a checkpoint because of
information about a person transporting illegal drugs. SPO2 Coco, asked the passengers
who among them was Tanggol. After Tanggol answered that it was him, SPO2 Coco
handcuffed him. PO1 Martin opened and searched the baggage of Tanggol. Bundles and
sachets were found inside. They smelled and confirmed that these contained marijuana
leaves. Tanggol was then arrested for violation of R.A. No. 9165. Was the arrest of
Tanggol lawful? Explain. (10 points)

Answer: Yes. Bases on the information provided the probable cause is sufficient. After the
police officer received the information about Tangol involvement of selling and transporting
Marijuana. The information considered as probable cause which is already reasonable that
the person has already committed a crime. In this case, the police officer grounds to conduct
further investigation. As to the search and seizure that Tangols baggage was conducted after
he was arrest and identified.

9. Distinguish formal amendment from substantial amendment of information. (10 points)

Answer: Formal amendment refers to change made to alteration made to a legal document
by relevant authorities. Substantial amendment involves a significant material change
to the content or substance of a legal document.

10. After the requisite proceedings, Provincial Prosecutor Repapap filed an information for
homicide against Remamam. The latter, however, timely filed a Petition for Review of
the Resolution of the Provincial Prosecutor with the Secretary of Justice who, in due
time, issued a Resolution reversing the Resolution of Provincial Prosecutor Repapap and
directing him to withdraw the Information. Before Provincial Prosecutor Repapap could
comply with the directive of the Secretary of Justice, the court issued a warrant of arrest
against Remamam. The Public Prosecutor filed a Motion to Quash the Warrant of Arrest
and to Withdraw the Information, attaching to it the Resolution of the Secretary of
Justice. The court denied the motion. Was there a legal basis for the court to deny the
motion? Explain. (10 points)
Answer: Yes. There would be a legal basis for for the court to deny the motion to quash the
warrant of arrest and to withdraw the information. Under Rules 112 Section 2 of Preliminary
Investigation conducted by a public prosecutor to determine whether there is sufficient
evidence to establish probable cause for filing a criminal information in court and if the
prosecutor finds that there is sufficient evidence and probable cause they will file an
information. With these considerations, the court may have felt that it was not compelled to
automatically withdraw the information and quash the warrant solely based on the Secretary
of Justice Resolution.

4
XXXXX NOTHING FOLLOWS XXXXX