I

Atty. Dalmacio, the Director of the National Bureau of Investigation, applied for a
search warrant before the Executive Judge of RTC Manila. He alleged in his
application that a certain alias Django was keeping about 10 kilos of shabu in a
wooden cabinet located at Dillian's Store in Paseo de Sta. Rosa, Laguna. The
Executive Judge of Manila personally examined Atty. Dalmacio and his witnesses
and thereafter issued the search warrant particularly describing the place to be
searched and the items to be seized. Can the concept of “venue is jurisdictional be
validly raised in applications for search warrants?

Answer:

No, the concept of "venue is jurisdictional" cannot be validly raised in applications for search
warrants in this context. The issuance of the search warrant by the Executive Judge of RTC
Manila is within the bounds of the law due to the special authority granted to Executive Judges
for certain serious offenses.

Legal Basis:

1. Rule 126, Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure: This rule governs the issuance of
search warrants, allowing any judge within whose territorial jurisdiction the crime was
committed to issue such warrants. In exceptional cases, judges are permitted to issue
warrants outside their jurisdiction.
2. Administrative Matter No. 99-10-09-SC (October 27, 2000): This administrative
matter specifically grants the Executive Judges and Vice Executive Judges of the
Regional Trial Courts of Manila and Quezon City the authority to act on applications for
search warrants involving heinous crimes, illegal gambling, illegal possession of firearms
and ammunition, and violations of the Dangerous Drugs Act, regardless of where the
crime was committed.

Application:

In this case, Atty. Dalmacio, as the Director of the National Bureau of Investigation, applied for
a search warrant before the Executive Judge of RTC Manila, alleging that a certain alias Django
was storing 10 kilos of shabu in a wooden cabinet at Dillian's Store in Paseo de Sta. Rosa,
Laguna. The Executive Judge of Manila personally examined Atty. Dalmacio and his witnesses,
ensuring compliance with the requirement of personal examination under oath. The search
warrant was then issued, particularly describing the place to be searched and the items to be
seized.

Conclusion:
Given the legal provisions and the authority granted to the Executive Judges of RTC Manila, the
issuance of the search warrant in this case is valid. The concept of "venue is jurisdictional" does
not apply to the issuance of search warrants by these Executive Judges for serious offenses, as
they are authorized to issue such warrants beyond their territorial jurisdiction.

II

The Republic of the Philippines (Republic) filed a complaint with the

Sandiganbayan in connection with the sequestered assets and properties of Demo
Companies Inc. (Demo) and impleaded its officers and directors. Since the
complaint did not include Demo as defendant, the Sandiganbayan issued a
Resolution where it ordered Demo to be impleaded. Thereafter, the Republic filed
an amended complaint naming Demo as additional defendant, which amendment
was later admitted.

Demo filed a motion for bill of particulars for the Republic to clarify certain
matters in its amended complaint. The Sandiganbayan immediately granted the
motion. Upon submission of the bill of particulars by the Republic, Demo filed a
motion to dismiss arguing that the answers in the bill of particulars were indefinite
and deficient responses to the question of what the alleged illegally acquired funds
or properties of Demo were. The Sandiganbayan dismissed the case. Was the
Sandiganbayan correct in dismissing the case?

No, the Sandiganbayan was not correct in dismissing the case based solely on the alleged
deficiencies in the Republic's bill of particulars.

Legal Basis:

1. Rules of Court, Rule 12: Rule 12 of the Rules of Court governs the bill of particulars. It
states that if the pleading is vague or ambiguous, a party may move for a bill of
particulars to clarify the issues. However, the failure to file a sufficient bill of particulars
is not in itself a ground for the dismissal of the complaint.
2. Judicial Precedents: Philippine case law has established that the primary purpose of a
bill of particulars is to enable the movant to prepare for trial, not to defeat the complaint.
A case should not be dismissed if there is still a way to clarify the ambiguities or
deficiencies through further proceedings.

Application:

In this case, the Republic filed an amended complaint against Demo, which then filed a motion
for a bill of particulars seeking clarification on certain matters. The Sandiganbayan granted this
motion, and the Republic complied by submitting the requested bill of particulars. Demo
subsequently filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that the Republic's responses were indefinite and
deficient.

The Sandiganbayan should have considered whether the deficiencies in the bill of particulars
were so significant that they prevented Demo from preparing its defense. If the responses were
indeed insufficient, the proper remedy would be to order the Republic to provide further details
or to clarify specific points, not to dismiss the case outright. Dismissal is a drastic measure and
should only be resorted to when it is clear that the plaintiff has no cause of action.

Conclusion:

The Sandiganbayan's dismissal of the case was premature and not in line with procedural rules.
The appropriate course of action would have been to allow further clarification or additional
proceedings to address any ambiguities or deficiencies in the Republic's bill of particulars.
Therefore, the dismissal of the case was incorrect.

III

The municipality of Danao, Cebu was a quiet and peaceful town until a group of
miners from Denmark visited the area and discovered that it was rich in nickel. In
partnership with the municipal mayor, the Danish miners had to flatten 10 hectares
of forest land by cutting all the trees before starting their mining operations. The
local DENR, together with the Samahan Laban sa Sumisira sa Kalikasan, filed a
petition for writ of kalikasan against the municipal mayor and the Danish miners
in the RTC of Cebu. Is the petition within the jurisdiction of the RTC of Cebu?

Answer:

No, the petition for a writ of kalikasan is not within the jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Court
(RTC) of Cebu. The jurisdiction to hear such petitions lies with a different court.

Legal Basis:

1. The Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases (A.M. No. 09-6-8-SC): These rules
govern the issuance of a writ of kalikasan and specify which courts have jurisdiction over
such petitions. According to these rules, the writ of kalikasan is a special civil action that
can be filed in the Supreme Court or with any of the stations of the Court of Appeals.
2. Jurisdictional Provisions: Rule 7, Section 3 of the Rules of Procedure for
Environmental Cases states that "A petition for the issuance of a writ of kalikasan may be
filed with the Supreme Court or with any of the stations of the Court of Appeals."

Application:
In the case at hand, the local Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) and the
Samahan Laban sa Sumisira sa Kalikasan filed a petition for a writ of kalikasan against the
municipal mayor and the Danish miners in the RTC of Cebu. However, according to the Rules of
Procedure for Environmental Cases, the proper forum for such a petition is either the Supreme
Court or the Court of Appeals, not the RTC.

Since the RTC of Cebu does not have jurisdiction over petitions for a writ of kalikasan, the
petition should be dismissed on jurisdictional grounds. The petitioners need to refile the case
with the appropriate court, either the Supreme Court or the Court of Appeals, to properly seek
relief under the writ of kalikasan.

Conclusion:

The petition for a writ of kalikasan filed in the RTC of Cebu is not within the jurisdiction of the
said court. The correct courts for such petitions are the Supreme Court or the Court of Appeals,
as specified by the Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases. Therefore, the petition should
be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

IV

A. What are the two elements of criminal jurisdiction?

The two primary elements of criminal jurisdiction are:

1. Subject Matter Jurisdiction: This refers to the authority of a court to hear and decide
cases of the general category to which the proceedings in question belong. In criminal
law, it means the court has the legal power to adjudicate on the type of offense charged.
For instance, specific courts are designated to handle particular types of crimes based on
their gravity or nature, such as regional trial courts for serious crimes and municipal trial
courts for less serious offenses.
2. Territorial Jurisdiction: This refers to the geographic area within which a court has the
authority to hear and decide a case. In criminal law, it means the offense must have been
committed within the geographic area covered by the court. If a crime is committed in a
particular city or municipality, the courts within that area typically have the jurisdiction
to hear the case.

These elements ensure that the appropriate court with the proper authority and within the correct
location addresses criminal cases, maintaining order and efficiency in the legal system.

B. What are the requisites for the valid exercise of criminal proceedings?3%

1. Jurisdiction over the subject matter

2. Jurisdiction over the person of the accused
 3. Jurisdiction over the territory

Define the following: 5%

A. Criminal proceedings

A system of adjudication by law based on impeachment or using a charge or

trial for misconduct which ends up in conviction or acquittal.

Criminal proceedings refers to the legal process from investigation to trial

and sentencing when an individual is charged with a crime.

B. Criminal jurisdiction

- the authority to hear and try a particular offense and impose the
punishment for it.

The term "jurisdiction" refers to a court's power to hear a case. The

circumstances of an alleged crime determine which court is empowered to hear
it

C. Complaint

– a written sworn statement charging a person with an offense, subscribed

to by the offended party, any peace officer, or other public officer charged
with the enforcement of the law violated.

D. Information

– an accusation in writing charging a person with an offense, subscribed by

the prosecutor, and filed with the court.

E. Venue

– defined as the particular country or geographical area in which a court with

jurisdiction may hear and determine a case.

VI
The information against Roger Alindogan for the crime of acts of lasciviousness
under Article 336 of the Revised Penal Code avers:

"That on or about 10:30 o'clock in the evening of February 1, 2010 at

Barangay Matalaba, Imus, Cavite and within the jurisdiction of this
Honorable Court, the above-named accused, with lewd and unchaste design,
through force and intimidation, did then and there, wilfully, unlawfully and
feloniously commit sexual abuse on his daughter, Rose Domingo, a minor of
11 years old, either by raping her or committing acts of lasciviousness on
her, against her will and consent to her damage and prejudice.

ACTS CONTRARY TO LAW."

The accused wants to have the case dismissed because he believes that the charge
is confusing and the information is defective. What ground or grounds can he raise
in moving for the quashal of the information? Explain.

The grounds which the accused can raise in moving for the quashal of the
information are the following:

1. THE INFORMATION CHARGES MORE THAN ONE OFFENSE. The

information charges two offenses, that is, rape and sexual abuse. Worse, the
charges are stated in the alternative, making it unclear to the accused as to what
offense exactly he is being charged with. Rule 110 sec. 13

2. THE INFORMATION DOES NOT CONFORM SUBSTANTIALLY TO

THE REQUIRED FORM. The information merely states that the accused
committed acts of lasciviousness upon the victim without specifying what those
acts of lasciviousness were. Rule 117. Sec. 3 (e)

VII

On his way to the PNP Academy in Silang, Cavite on board a public transport bus
as a passenger, Police Inspector Masigasig of the Valenzuela Police witnessed an
on-going armed robbery while the bus was traversing Makati. His alertness and
training enabled him to foil the robbery and to subdue the malefactor. He disarmed
the felon and while frisking him, discovered another handgun tucked in his waist.
He seized both handguns and the malefactor was later charged with the separate
crimes of robbery and illegal possession of firearm. Where should Police Inspector
Masigasig bring the felon for criminal processing? To Silang, Cavite where he is
bound; to Makati where the bus actually was when the felonies took place; or back
to Valenzuela where he is stationed? Which court has jurisdiction over the criminal
cases?
A: Police Inspector Masigasig should bring the felon to the nearest police
station or jail in Makati City where the bus actually was when the felonies
took place.
Moreover, where an offense is committed in a public vehicle while in the
course of its trip, the criminal action shall be instituted and tried in the court of
any Municipality or territory where such vehicle passed during its trip,
including the place of its departure and arrival (Sec. 15[b], Rule 110).
Consequently, the criminal case for robbery and illegal possession of
firearms can be filed in Regional Trial Court of Makati City or on any of the
places of departure or arrival of the bus.

VIII

A. State five criminal cases cognizable in the first level courts. 5%

A: The jurisdiction of first level courts in the Philippines, which include Metropolitan Trial
Courts (MeTC), Municipal Trial Courts in Cities (MTCC), Municipal Trial Courts (MTC), and
Municipal Circuit Trial Courts (MCTC), covers specific criminal cases as defined by law.

L: Under the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure and other pertinent laws, first level courts
have jurisdiction over:

1. Violations of city or municipal ordinances.

2. Offenses punishable with imprisonment not exceeding six years, irrespective of the
amount of fine.
3. Cases involving damage to property through criminal negligence.
4. Theft and simple theft.
5. Malicious mischief where the value of damage does not exceed the jurisdictional amount.

A: These specific cases fall under the jurisdiction of first level courts due to the nature of the
offenses and the prescribed penalties, ensuring that less severe criminal cases are handled
efficiently at the local level.

C: Five examples of criminal cases cognizable in the first level courts are:

1. Violations of city or municipal ordinances.

2. Offenses punishable with imprisonment not exceeding six years.
3. Cases of damage to property through criminal negligence.
 4. Theft and simple theft.
5. Malicious mischief where the value of the damage does not exceed the jurisdictional
amount.

These cases are handled by first level courts to ensure swift and effective administration of
justice for minor offenses.

B. State four criminal cases cognizable in the second level courts. 4%

A: Second level courts in the Philippines include Regional Trial Courts (RTCs). These courts
have broader jurisdiction over more serious criminal cases compared to first level courts.

L: According to the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure and other relevant laws, the second
level courts have jurisdiction over:

1. All offenses punishable by imprisonment exceeding six years, irrespective of the fine
imposed.
2. All offenses that involve the title to, or possession of, real property, or any interest
therein.
3. All cases not within the exclusive jurisdiction of any other court, tribunal, or body.
4. Cases where the penalty prescribed by law is higher than prision correccional, or
imprisonment for six years, or a fine of more than 6,000 pesos.

A: The jurisdiction of the RTCs includes handling more severe criminal cases, ensuring that
more serious offenses are adjudicated by courts with wider authority and resources.

C: Four examples of criminal cases cognizable in the second level courts are:

1. Murder or Homicide: Due to the severe nature of these crimes and the penalties
involved.
2. Rape: Given the gravity of the offense and the significant penalties prescribed by law.
3. Plunder: Typically involving large sums of money or property and severe penalties.
4. Large-scale Illegal Drug Cases: These involve significant quantities of illegal
substances and harsh penalties.

These cases fall under the jurisdiction of the RTCs due to their complexity and the serious nature
of the crimes.

IX

Choose the correct answer.

A. The information charges PNP Chief Luis Santos, (Salary Grade 28), with
"taking advantage of his public position as PNP Head by feloniously shooting
JOSE ONA, inflicting on the latter mortal wounds which caused his death." Based
solely on this allegation, which court has jurisdiction over the case? 2.5%

(i) Sandiganbayan only

B. Which of the following is a correct statement of the rule on amendment of the

information in a criminal proceeding? 2.5%

(iv) After the plea, a formal amendment may be made without leave of court.

On August 13, 2008, A, as shipper and consignee, loaded on the M/V Atlantis in
Legaspi City 100,000 pieces of century eggs. The shipment arrived in Manila
totally damaged on August 14, 2008. A filed before the Metropolitan Trial Court
(MeTC) of Manila a complaint against B Super Lines, Inc. (B Lines), owner of
the M/V Atlantis, for recovery of damages amounting to ₱167,899. He attached to
the complaint the Bill of Lading.

a. B Lines filed a Motion to Dismiss upon the ground that the Regional
Trial Court has exclusive original jurisdiction over "all actions in
admiralty and maritime" claims. In his Reply, A contended that while the
action is indeed "admiralty and maritime" in nature, it is the amount of
the claim, not the nature of the action, that governs jurisdiction. Pass on
the Motion to Dismiss.
The Motion to Dismiss is without merit and therefore should be denied. Courts of
the first level have jurisdiction over civil actions where the demand is for sum of
money not exceeding P300, 000.00 or in Metro-Manila, P400, 000.00, exclusive of
Interest, damages, attorney's fees, litigation expenses and, costs: this jurisdiction
includes admiralty and marine cases. And where the main cause of action is the
claim for damages, the Amount thereof shall be considered in determining the
jurisdiction of the court (Adm. Circular No. 09-94, June 14, 1994).

b. The MeTC denied the Motion in question A. B Lines thus filed an Answer
raising the defense that under the Bill of Lading it issued to A, its liability
was limited to ₱10,000.

At the pre-trial conference, B Lines defined as one of the issues whether the
stipulation limiting its liability to ₱10,000 binds A. A countered that this was
 no longer in issue as B Lines had failed to deny under oath the Bill of
Lading. Which of the parties is correct? Explain. (3%)

The Contention of B is correct: A’s contention is wrong. It was A who pleaded the Bill of
Lading as an actionable document where the stipulation limits B's liability to A to P10,
000.00 only. The issue raised by B does not go against or impugn the genuineness and
due execution of the Bill of Lading as an actionable document pleaded by A, but invokes
the binding effect of said stipulation. The oath is not required of B, because the issue
raised by the latter does not impugn the genuineness and due execution of the Bill of
Lading.

b. On July 21, 2009, B Lines served on A a "Notice to Take Deposition,"

setting the deposition on July 29, 2009 at 8:30 a.m. at the office of its
counsel in Makati. A failed to appear at the deposition-taking, despite
notice. As counsel for B Lines, how would you proceed?

SUGGESTED ANSWER As counsel for B Lines (which gave notice to take the
deposition), I shall proceed as follows: 1. Find out why A failed to appear at the
deposition taking, despite notice; 2. If failure was for valid reason, then set another
date for taking the deposition; 3. If failure to appear at deposition taking was
without a valid reason, then I would make a motion/application in the court where
the action is pending, for an order to show cause for his refusal to submit to the
discovery; and 4. For the court to issue appropriate Order provided under Rule 29 of
the Rules, for noncompliance with the show-cause order, aside from contempt of
court.

XI

An Information for murder was filed with Regional Trial Court Branch 35 of
General Santos City. During the scheduled arraignment, Atty Mahu Saykuno, the
counsel for accused Mapanghi, questioned the validity of the Information on the
ground that it was not signed by the City Prosecutor. If you were the judge, how
would you rule?

A. Answer:

As the judge, I would rule that the Information for murder must be signed by the City Prosecutor
or any of his assistants to be valid.

Legal Basis:
 1. Requirement for Signing by the Prosecutor: Rule 110, Section 4 of the Rules of Court
requires that all information be filed by the prosecutor and signed by him or any of his
assistants.

B. Answer:

The rule is clear that the Information must be signed by the prosecutor or any of his assistants to
be valid.

Legal Basis:

1. Rule on Signing of Information: Rule 110, Section 4 of the Rules of Court mandates that
the Information must be signed by the prosecutor or any of his assistants. This
requirement ensures that the filing of criminal charges is under the supervision and
responsibility of the prosecuting authority.

Conclusion:

Therefore, as the judge, I would sustain Atty. Mahu Saykuno's objection to the validity of the
Information for murder because it was not signed by the City Prosecutor or any of his assistants.
The Information must comply with the procedural requirement of being signed by the prosecutor
or his assistants to initiate valid criminal proceedings before the Regional Trial Court Branch 35
of General Santos City.

XII

It is a basic principle in Remedial Law that the Supreme Court is not a trier of
facts. State five exceptions.

1. When the findings of fact are conflicting: If the lower courts or administrative bodies
arrive at conflicting findings of fact, the Supreme Court may step in to resolve the factual
discrepancies.
2. When the inference drawn from the facts is manifestly mistaken, absurd, or
impossible: If the lower courts or administrative bodies make conclusions that are clearly
erroneous based on the established facts of the case, the Supreme Court may intervene to
correct these errors.
3. When there is grave abuse of discretion: If there is a showing that the lower courts or
administrative bodies committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of
jurisdiction in their factual findings, the Supreme Court may review and correct these
findings.
4. When the findings are based on a misapprehension of facts: If the lower courts or
administrative bodies base their findings on a misapprehension of facts or overlook
 certain material facts that could alter the outcome of the case, the Supreme Court may
review and rectify these errors.
5. When the factual findings are conflicting with the documentary evidence: If the
lower courts' factual findings are in conflict with clear and convincing documentary
evidence presented, the Supreme Court may examine the evidence and make its own
findings of fact based on the documentary record.

These exceptions allow the Supreme Court to exercise its authority as a trier of facts in specific
situations where justice and fairness require a review or correction of lower court or
administrative findings.

XIII

A. State four cases in which the Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction.

The Sandiganbayan, a special court in the Philippines, has jurisdiction over specific cases
involving public officials and employees, particularly those charged with certain offenses. Here
are four cases in which the Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction:

1. Violations of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act (RA 3019): The
Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over cases involving violations of RA 3019, which
include acts of corruption such as bribery, graft, and other unlawful activities committed
by public officers.
2. Plunder: The Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over cases of plunder under Republic Act
No. 7080. Plunder involves amassing, accumulating, or acquiring ill-gotten wealth
through illegal means amounting to at least 50 million pesos.
3. Malversation of Public Funds or Property: The Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over
cases involving the misappropriation, misuse, or illegal disposition of public funds or
property by public officers under Article 217 of the Revised Penal Code.
4. Other offenses committed by public officers classified as Grade 27 and above: Apart
from the specific offenses mentioned above, the Sandiganbayan also has jurisdiction over
other offenses committed by public officers classified as Grade 27 and above, including
those punishable under the Revised Penal Code when committed in relation to their
office.

These cases highlight the Sandiganbayan's role in handling criminal cases involving public
officials accused of corruption and other related offenses, ensuring accountability and
transparency in government service.

C. State three cases in which the Court of Appeals has jurisdiction.

The Court of Appeals in the Philippines has jurisdiction over a wide range of cases, both civil
and criminal, as provided by law. Here are three types of cases in which the Court of Appeals has
jurisdiction:
 1. Petitions for Review from Regional Trial Courts: The Court of Appeals has
jurisdiction to review final judgments, resolutions, or orders of the Regional Trial Courts
(RTCs) in cases originally decided by them in the exercise of their original jurisdiction.
2. Petitions for Certiorari, Prohibition, and Mandamus: The Court of Appeals has
jurisdiction to hear petitions for certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus against lower
courts, tribunals, boards, officers, or any government agencies, when there is no appeal,
or any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.
3. Special Civil Actions: The Court of Appeals has jurisdiction over special civil actions,
such as petitions for habeas corpus, quo warranto, and injunction, when these cases are
not within the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court or other courts, as provided by law.

These examples illustrate the diverse jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals in reviewing decisions
from lower courts, resolving special civil actions, and ensuring legal remedies are available in
cases where justice demands appellate review or special relief.

XIV

Ares Gado, City Vice-Mayor of Paradise Island City, was charged with a violation
of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act and falsification of public documents
in connection with the appointment of a secretary to the Sangguniang Panlungsod
of Paradise Island City. He argued that the Sandiganbayan did not have jurisdiction
over the case. Rule.

Answer:

Ares Gado, City Vice-Mayor of Paradise Island City, argued that the Sandiganbayan does not
have jurisdiction over the case.

Legal Basis:

1. Jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan: Under Republic Act No. 7975 and subsequent
amendments, the Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over cases involving violations of the
Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act (RA 3019) committed by officials classified as
Grade 27 and above, including violations of the Revised Penal Code and other laws
committed in relation to their office.
2. Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act (RA 3019): This law penalizes acts of
corruption and graft committed by public officials, including falsification of public
documents related to their official functions.

Application:

In the case of Ares Gado, as City Vice-Mayor, he is charged with violations of the Anti-Graft
and Corrupt Practices Act and falsification of public documents related to the appointment of a
secretary to the Sangguniang Panlungsod of Paradise Island City. These offenses fall within the
jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan because they involve alleged acts of corruption and
falsification committed by a public official in relation to his official duties.

Conclusion:

Ares Gado's argument that the Sandiganbayan does not have jurisdiction over the case is not
valid. The Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over cases involving violations of the Anti-Graft and
Corrupt Practices Act committed by officials within its prescribed categories, including those
involving falsification of public documents related to their official functions. Therefore, the
Sandiganbayan is the appropriate court to hear and decide the charges against Ares Gado.

XV

An Information charging Di Natuto for the crime of 5 counts of Murder, 2 counts

of violation of BP 22 and criminal negligence resulting in homicide was filed with
the Regional Trial Court Branch 25. During arraignment, he pleaded not guilty to
all crimes. Before the prosecution can present its first witness, Di Natuto’s counsel,
Atty. Mahina, noticed that in all the offenses charged against his client, there is
only one Information. He questioned the validity of the Information by filing a
Motion to Quash the Information on the ground of violation of the rule on duplicity
of offenses.

A. When should the motion be filed?

Atty. Mahina should file the Motion to Quash the Information on the ground
of violation of the rule on duplicity of offenses before Di Natuto enters his
plea during arraignment.

Legal Basis:
Timing of the Motion: Rule 117, Section 3 of the Rules of Court states that
objections based on grounds apparent on the face of the Information, such as
duplicity of offenses, must be raised before the accused enters his plea. Once
the accused pleads to the charges, objections based on these grounds are
deemed waived.

B. Rule on the motion.

The court should rule on the Motion to Quash based on the legal principles of duplicity of
offenses and the procedural rules governing the filing of criminal charges.

Legal Basis:

1. Rule on Duplicity of Offenses: Rule 110, Section 13 of the Rules of Court prohibits
charging more than one offense in a single Information, except when the law prescribes
a single punishment for various offenses committed under different modes. This rule
ensures that the accused is properly informed of the nature and cause of the accusation
against them, and that each offense is tried separately.

C. How many Information should be filed instead?

Separate Information should be filed for each distinct offense charged against Di Natuto.

Legal Basis:

1. Requirement for Separate Informations: Each offense charged has its own elements
and penalties. Therefore, to uphold the accused's right to be informed of the charges
and to ensure clarity in the trial proceedings, separate Informations should be filed for
each count of Murder, each count of violation of BP 22, and for criminal negligence
resulting in homicide.

Conclusion:

Atty. Mahina should promptly file the Motion to Quash the Information before Di Natuto enters
his plea during arraignment to preserve the objection based on duplicity of offenses. The court
should grant the motion and direct the prosecution to file separate Informations — one for each
offense charged — to ensure compliance with procedural rules and to properly inform Di Natuto
of the accusations against him.

XVI

In what forum (court) should the following cases be filed? 1%

i. Libel
ii. Election offenses
iii. Failure to vote
iv. Dangerous drugs cases
 v. Offenses involving damage to property through criminal negligence

BONUS:

TELL ME WHY. 10 points.

Why do people create strife causing great misery amongst innocent lives? Nation
against nation: waging wars and disregarding lives being caught in the crossfires.
Man in nature is supposed to be good but as long people do not set aside their
cultural, political, and even religious differences these waging wars will never
cease. Man was gifted with wisdom but instead of putting it to good use, he tends
to use it to gain from other people, trampling others just to be on the top.

Sorry Atty. I really do appreciate your efforts in imparting to us your wisdom about this subject. I failed as a
student and it’s solely my fault for not doing well in this class. It’s not that I have not studied, I’m having a hard
time recalling what I have read. It may sound like an excuse, but I do suck at constructing my thoughts in
applying those provisions to these questions. I’ll try to make amends in the next assessments remaining. I
apologize for failing this quiz.