Rafales, Aaron Ralph D.

BSCRIM 42A2

Assignment in Criminal Procedure and Court Testimony for Midterm

(To be passed in hard copy not later than Tuesday (May 21, 2024)

1. Questions:
a. When can a person be arrested without a warrant? (Under Rule 113 of the Rules of
Court )
ANSWER: Under Rule 113 of the Rules of Court, a person can be arrested without a
warrant:
a) When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing, or is
attempting to commit an offense; (in flagrante delicto)
b) When an offense has just been committed and he has probable cause to believe
that based on personal knowledge of facts and circumstances the person to be arrested has
committed it (hot pursuit)
c) When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has escaped from a penal establishment or
place where he is serving final judgment or is temporarily confined while his case is pending, or
has escaped while being transferred from one confinement to another. (arrest of escaped
prisoner)
d) If a person lawfully arrested escapes or is rescued, any person can arrest him (Arrestee)
e) For the purpose of surrendering the accused, bonsmen may arrest him or upon written
authority (Bondsmen Arrest)
f) Arrest of an accused released on bail if he attempts to flee from the Philippines without
permission from the Courty (Depart from the Philippines)

b. When can a person be subjected to search without a warrant?

(Under Rule 113 of the Rules of Court)
ANSWER: a) Search is incidental to a lawful arrest;
b) Seizure of evidence in plain view;
c) Search of a moving vehicle;
d) Consented warrantless search;
e) Customs search;
f) Stop-and-frisk;
g) Exigent and emergency circumstances; and
h) Search made pursuant to routine airport security procedure.
Questions:
What is/are the effect/s if the arrest of the accused is illegal?
ANSWER: Under the law, if the accused is arrested illegally, it affects only the jurisdiction of the
court over the person of the accused. Consequently, if objection on such ground is waived, the
illegality of the arrest is not sufficient reason for setting aside an otherwise valid judgment
rendered after trial, free from error.

Differentiate an arrest in flagrante delicto and an arrest in hot pusuit.?

ANSWER: Under the law, in cases of arrests in flagrante delicto, a peace officer or a private
person may without a warrant, arrest a person, when in his presence, the person to be arrested
has committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense. The arresting
officer, therefore, must have personal knowledge of such facts or circumstances convincingly
indicative or constitutive of probable cause.
On the other hand, in case of hot pursuit, a peace officer or a private person may, without a
warrant, arrest a person when an offense has just been committed and he has probable cause
to believe based on personal knowledge of facts or circumstances that the person to be
arrested has committed it. In arrest during hot pursuit, there must be a large measure of
immediacy between the time the offense was committed and the time of the arrest, and if
there was an appreciable lapse of time between the arrest and the commission of the crime, a
warrant of arrest must be secured.

If you were the lawyer of Elsa Droga what are you going to do to free your client the earliest
opportune time?
ANSWER: If I were the lawyer of Elsa Droga, my remedy to free my client at the
earliest opportune time is to file a motion to quash the information on the ground that the
court has no jurisdiction over the person of the accused.

Question: When is a bail matter of right and when is it a matter and when is it a matter of
discretion?
ANSWER: Under the law, the general rule is that, prior to conviction by the RTC of a criminal
offense, an accused is entitled to be released on bail as a matter of right, except when the
accused is charged with a capital offense or an offense punishable by reclusion perpetua or life
imprisonment and the evidence of guilt is strong. Bail becomes a matter of discretion when the
accused has already been convicted by the RTC in cases not punishable by death, reclusion
perpetua or life imprisonment.

Question:
Man Yakis was charged with rape, a crime punishable by reclusion perpetua, for allegedly
having carnal knowledge with Magandang Dilag while the latter was unconcious due to too
much liquor intake.

Can Man Yakis post bail pending trial of his case?

ANSWER: No. Man Yakis cannot post bail pending trial of his case. Under the Rules of Court, the
general rule is that, bail is a matter of right, except when the offense is punishable by reclusion
perpetua or life imprisonment and the evidence of guilt is strong. In the present case, Man
Yakis is charged with rape which is punishable by reclusion perpetua. Being one of the
exceptions of the rule, the crime of rape is non-bailable. Therefore, Man Yakis cannot post bail
pending trial of his case.
What if having found guilty of acts of lasciviousness, Man Yakis appealed his conviction, can the
trial court grant bail for his temporary liberty?
ANSWER: No. The trial court cannot grant bail for his temporary liberty. Under Section 5 of Rule
114 of the rules of Court, bail becomes discretionary upon conviction by the RTC of an offense
not punishable by death, reclusion perpetua, or life imprisonment. The application for bail may
be filed and acted upon by the trial court. However, if the decision of the trial court convicting
the accused changed the nature of the offense from non-bailable to bailable, the application for
bail can only be filed with and resolved by the appellate court. In the present case, the accused
was charged by rape which is nonbailable, but was convicted for acts of lasciviousness, which is
bailable, the proper court to grant bail should be the Court of Appeals. Hence, the trial court
cannot grant bail for his temporary liberty.
4.. Questions:

Enumerate the grounds for a motion to quash the complaint or information.

ANSWER: a) That the facts charged do not constitute an offense;
b) That the court trying the case has no jurisdiction;
c) That the court trying the case has no jurisdiction over the person of the accused;
d) That the officer who files the information had no authority to do so;
e) That it does not conform substantially to the prescribed form;
f) That more than one offense is charged except when a single punishment for various offenses
is prescribed by law;
g) That the criminal action or liability gas been extinguished;
h) That it contains averments which, if true, would constitute a legal excuse or justification; and
i) That the accuse has been previously convicted or acquitted of the offense charged, or the
case against him was dismissed or otherwise terminated without his express consent (double
jeopardy).

5.Questions:
Discuss the three modes of appeal.
ANSWER: Under the law, there are three modes of appeal, namely: ordinary appeal, petition
for review and appeal by certiorari. Ordinary appeal is taken by filing a notice of appeal with the
court that rendered the judgment. The judgment appealed from an ordinary appeal is rendered
in the exercise of the court’s original jurisdiction.
Petition for review is available only against judgments or final orders of Regional Trial Courts
rendered in the exercise of their appellate jurisdiction. It is taken by filing a petition with the
Court of Appeals in accordance with Rule 42 of the Rules of Court. In a petition for review, the
judgment appealed from is in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction and it involves questions
of fact or mixed questions of fact and law.
Appeal by certiorari is available only in cases where only questions of law are involved. It is
taken by petition to the Supreme Court in accordance with Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. It
involves only pure questions of law. The appeal by certiorari involves judgment, final order, or
resolution rendered by a court regardless of the jurisdiction exercised.

.b. What is the finality-of-acquittal rule?

ANSWER: Under the law, the finality-of-acquittal rule means that the prosecution cannot
appeal or bring an error proceeding from judgment in favor of the defendant in a criminal case.
It states that a judgment of acquittal is immediately final and executory and the prosecution
cannot appeal the acquittal because of the constitutional prohibition against double jeopardy

6 .Question:

A, B and C are best of friends. On Christmas eve, they got together and had a drinking spree to
celebrate the holidays. Thereafter, they agreed to pay a visit to their classmate residing in
another barangay. On their way, they saw D, their childhood nemesis. Enraged with the thought
of D’s past bullying, A and B approached D, mauled him and left him dying. C merely watched A
and B injure D. D survived. On the sole testimony of D, an Information for frustrated murder
was filed against A, B and C. If you were the lawyer of C, what advice will you give him to assure
his acquittal?

ANSWER:
To ensure the acquittal of C, I will advise him to apply to be discharged as a state witness
under the Witness Protection Program pursuant to RA 6981. Under the law, an accused may
apply to be discharged as a state witness under RA 6981 with the following requisites: 1) The
offense in which his testimony will be used is a grave felony as defined under the Revised Penal
Code or its equivalent under special laws; 2) There is absolute necessity for his testimony; 3)
There is no other direct evidence available for the proper prosecution of the offense
committed; 4) His testimony can be substantially corroborated on its material points; 5) He
does not appear to be the most guilty; and 6) He has not any time been convicted of any crime
involving moral torpitude. Admission into the Witness Protection Program shall entitle such
State Witness to immunity from Criminal Prosecution for the offense or offenses in which his
testimony will be given or used and all the rights and benefits provided under RA 6981. In the
case at the bar, C merely watched A and B injure D and did not participate in the said act. Here,
C meets all the requirements under the abovementioned law. If his admission to be a state
witness pursuant to RA 6981 is approved by the DOJ, the court will order the discharge and
exclusion of C from the information and avail him of all the rights and benefits provided under
the said witness protection program.
Hence, I will advise C to apply to be discharged as state witness under the Witness Protection
Program pursuant to RA 6981