Read and understand the questions very well and answer each legibly.

Questions that are answerable by yes or no should be explained further.

Mere answering by yes or no with no explanation will not be credited. Items
consisting of two questions may be answered into one paragraph.
1. In the case of Arambolo v. Laqui a complaint for written libel was filed
with the City Prosecution Office. After conducting preliminary
investigation and finding probable cause, the prosecutor erroneously filed
the information before the MTC, instead of the RTC. After a demurrer to
evidence filed by the accused, the MTC dismissed it for lack of
jurisdiction.

Did the period of prescription continue to run while the case was
pending with the MTC which has no jurisdiction over the offense?

2. In the case of Villaflor v. Vivar, the accused was charged with slight
physical injuries. Despite the fact that based on the imposable penalty no
preliminary investigation was required, the prosecutor conducted one.
When the injuries sustained by the offended party turned out to be more
serious than they had first appeared, the information was amended to
the charge of sious physical injuries. Considering the imposable penalty,
the later offense required a preliminary investigation but the prosecutor
did not conduct any.
Is a preliminary question part of the trial?
3. In People v. Verra, the accused was charged with murder and pleaded not
guilty. On the same day, the prosecution called to the stand the wife of
the victim who testified that she was no longer interested in pursuing the
case and three other witnesses had turned hostile. Thereafter, the
prosecution joined by the accused moved for the dismissal of the case
which the judge granted. Later, 2 sisters of the victim assailed the
allegation of lack of interest. Further, 2 witnesses appeared manifesting
their willingness to testify. P.344

May the case be prosecuted anew?

4. In the case Heirs of Rillorta v. Firme the facts are as follows:

Although charged for the death of the victim, accused was eventually
convicted only of less serious physical injuries, sentenced to 20 days
and ordered to indemnify the heirs of the victim the amount of P500.
The heirs appealed the civil aspect urging that the civil award in the
sum of only P500 be increased because accused should not have been
found guilty of only less serious physical injuries but of homicide.

May the criminal aspect of the decision be modified as a basis for

the increase in the civil award?

5. In the case Abunado v. People, Salvador married Narcisa in 1967. In

1989, while the first marriage was subsisting, Salvador to Zenaida. On
1
GOD BLESS.
Z. BONGABONG

ATTY. RAY

May 18, 1995, a case for bigamy was filed by Narcisa against Salvador
and Zenaida. Subsequently, the marriage between Salvador and Zenaida
was annulled.

Was the annulment case a prejudicial question that would justify

suspension of the prosecution for bigamy?

6. The PNP applied for a search warrant for the search of PICOP in Bislig,
Surigao del Sur. The search was for the seizure of 70 Armalite rifles and
other assorted firearms. The applicant did not allege that PICOP has no
license to possess the firearms nor did it attach a certification from the
Firearms and Explosives Unit on lack of license. (PICOP v. Asuncion) p.539
Was there probable cause for the issuance of
the warrant?
7. Accused was charged with slunder before the Sandiganbayan and he
applied for bail. The court insisted that he should be arraigned first
before the hearing on his bail application can proceed. When he refused
to be arraigned, the Sandiganbayan entered a plea of not guilty for him.
(Serapio v. Sandiganbayan 396 SCRA 443)
Is the arraignment of the accused a prerequisite to the conduct
of hearings on his petition for bail?
When does a person allowed to petition for bail?

8. What are the grounds for warrantless arrest?

9. State the grounds of pre-judicial question?
10. How is criminal liability extinguished?

2
GOD BLESS.
Z. BONGABONG

ATTY. RAY