MOCK BAR EXAMINATION QUESTIONS IN

CRIMINAL LAW
1. While patrolling an area known for high incidence of drug related offenses, Sgt. Matalismata and Sgt. Bilis-takbo came upon a group of five teenagers standing in the curb, near a
parked car. Upon seeing the patrol car, the five teenagers scampered in all directions. Sgt.
Bilis-takbo quickly alighted from the vehicle and chased the nearest teenager, H, Sgt. Bilistakbo shouted at H to stop but H continued running. Upon rounding a corner, H threw away
something. Sgt Bilis-takbo, who was hot on Hs heels scooped-up the object, and continued
the chase. Eventually, Sgt. Bilis-takbo overtook H and patted him down. No weapons or
incriminating evidence were found. However, upon examination by the crime lab, the object
H threw on the sidewalk turned out to be crack cocaine. During his trial for illegal
possession of prohibited substance, H objected to the admission of the crack cocaine. As
judge would you admit the evidence?
a. Yes, the search was validly done incident to the warrantless arrest based on
probable cause arising from the suspects suspicious conduct in running away upon
seeing the police car.
b. No, the search was illegal because there was no valid arrest. The suspects conduct
of running not being sufficient to engender a well-founded belief that the suspect was
committing as a crime.
c. Yes, the evidence was obtained even before the suspect was arrested rendering the
rules on valid search and seizure inapplicable.
d. No, the evidence should be suppressed because the suspect was effectively already
under the policemans control, yet there was no probable cause to effect the arrest.
2. Z, who was charge with Murder, applied for bail. After the bail hearing, the Regional Trial

Court of Dumaguete (RTC) found that the evidence against Z is strong thus it denied his bail
application. However, after trial, the RTC Dumaguete found Z guilty of Homicide only and
sentenced him to an indeterminate term of eight years and one day of prison mayor, as
minimum, to fourteen years and eight months of reclusion temporal, as maximum and
cancelled Zs bail. Z had filed a notice of appeal to the Court of Appeals. He wants to be
freed on bail pending his appeal. Where should Z apply for bail?
a. Z. should apply for bail in the RTC Dumaguete which rendered judgment against
him.
b. Z should apply for bail in the CA as he had filed a notice of appeal of a conviction for
a bailable offense.
c. Z should apply for bail in the RTC Dumaguete which retains residual jurisdiction over
the case for purposes of granting bail pending appeal.
d. Z should apply for bail in the CA as the trial court had lost jurisdiction over the case
upon the filing of Zs appeal.
3. After receiving tips that marijuana shrubs are being grown in a compound inside a

subdivision, Sgt. Liit, a narcotics agent specializing in marijuana horticulture, checked-out

the place. To his dismay, Sgt. Liit a narcotics discovered that the compound was walled-off
by a seven-foot concrete fence. To get a better view, Sgt. Liit climbed a nearby kaimito tree.
With the higher elevation, Sgt. Liit saw in one corner of the compound a green house where
meter-high , marijuana like shrubs were being grown. Sgt. Liit went down the tree. Knocked
on the compounds gate, introduced himself to the lone caretaker, went inside the compound
and uprooted some of the shrubs. Upon examination by the crime laboratory, the shrubs
were confirmed to be marijuana. In the hearing to suppress the evidence, the prosecution

contended that Sgt. Liit seized the evidence under the plain view doctrine, is this contention
tenable?
a.
b.
c.
d.

Yes, because it was immediately apparent to Sgt. Liit, a marijuana horticulturist, that
the shrubs were marijuana.
No, because the shrubs were not in plain view as Sgt. Liit had to climb a nearby
tree to see them.
Yes, because Sgt. Liit, upon seeing the shrubs, had probable cause to believe that
they were marijuana.
No, because Sgt. Liit had to enter the compound in order to obtain a sample of the
marijuana.

4. Is a mandatory file search of laptops of departing passengers at airports (that is, the

activation of laptops and the random opening of any of its files) reasonable?
a. Yes, because the search is just pro-forma and there is reduced expectation of
privacy in airports.
b. No, because such search without probable cause violates the right of passengers to
the privacy of their papers.
c. Yes, because the governments interest in monitoring cases of violation of anti-piracy
and pornographic laws is paramount over the passengers right to privacy.
d. No, because the governments interest in instituting screening measures in
transportation hubs such as airports and terminals relates to ensuring the safety of
passengers, not crimes the evidence for which may be found in laptops.
5. Can Department of Justice prosecutors conduct preliminary invitation of a complaint for

Bribery against a BIR Regional Director for violation of Republic Act 3019 (Anti-Graft and
Corrupt Practices Act)?
a. Yes, as DOJ prosecutors have been with a very broad investigatory powers.
b. No, because the Ombudsman has exclusive original jurisdiction to investigate public
officials and employees.
c. Yes, because the DOJ prosecutors and the Ombudsman exercise concurrent
investigatory powers over public officers.
d. No, unless the parties submit themselves to the DOJ prosecutors