MARCH 6, 2017 MIDTERMS CRIMPRO

State whether the remedy taken by the accused in each of the following cases is correct. If not correct,
explain why it is not correct and state the proper remedy, if any:

a) The information for HOMICIDE is filed with the RTC without a Preliminary Investigation being
first conducted. Before arraignment, the accused moves to quash the information on the
ground of lack of preliminary investigation.

No. Lack or absence of preliminary investigation is not ground for quashing the complaint or information.
The absence of preliminary investigation does not impair the validity of the complaint or information or
otherwise or render it defective. Neither does it affect the jurisdiction of the court. If the offense requires
preliminary investigation, but no preliminary investigation was conducted the trial should not dismiss the
complaint or information. Instead, the trial court should hold in abeyance the proceedings and order the
public prosecutor to conduct a preliminary investigation. (Ref: Villaflor vs. Gozon, G.R. No. 13477, Jan.
16,2001)

b) The accused files a counterclaim against the complainant in the same criminal case, arguing
that his counterclaim is connected with the transaction that is the subject matter of the
complainants claim.

c) The accused moves to suspend the civil case against him on the ground that there is a
subsequently filed criminal action which constitutes a prejudicial question

II

a) What should a complaint or information state in order to make it sufficient?

A complaint is a sworn written statement charging a person with an offense, subscribed by the offended
party, any peace officer, or other public officer charged with the enforcement of the law violated. (Ref:
Sec. 3) An information is an accusation in writing charging a person with an offense subscribed by the
prosecutor and filed with the court. (Ref: Sec. 4)

b) What is the doctrine of PARENS PATRIAE as enunciated under Section 5, Rule 110 of the Rules
of Court?

Parens Patriae is the doctrine that vests upon parents, grandparents, guardian, and the State the
authority to intiate criminal prosecution in cases if seduction, abduction, or acts of lasciviousness in the
event the offended party dies or becomes incapacitated before she could file the complaint.

The doctrine of parens patriae, however does not cover adultery and concubinage where only the
offended spouse and no other is authorized by law to initiate the criminal prosecution thereof. (Ref:
Pilapil vs. Somera, 174 SCRA 653)
 c) May the offended party institute a separate civil action even if he has not reserved his right to
do so

If the civil action is one to enforce a civil liability arising from the offense charged the offended party is
required to reserve his right to institute a separate civil action. But there are instances when reservation
is not allowed, and these are: (a) in criminal action for violation of BP. 22 where the corresponding civil
action is deemed included and therefore, no reservation to file such civil action separately shall be
allowed; (b) in criminal action filed with the Sandiganbayan where the criminal action deemed to
necessarily carry with it the filing of the civil action, and no right reserved the filing of such civil action
separately from the criminal action shall be recognized. (Refs: Sec. 1 (b); Sec. 4, PD 1606, as amended by
RA No. 8249)

The reservation of the right to institute a separate civil action shall be made before the prosecution starts
presenting its evidence and under circumstances affording the offended party a reasonable opportunity
to make such reservation.

But if the civil action is an independent civil action as provided for in Articles 32, 33, 34, and 2176 of the
Civil Code, the offended party is not required to make such reservation. Moreover, and independent civil
action may proceed simultaneously with and independently of the criminal action. (Ref: Sec. 3)

III

An information was filed against X with the MeTC for violation of BP22 because the check in the
amount of P500,000 issued by X to Y was dishonoured by the drawee-bank. May Y reserve his right to
file a separate civil action for the payment of the sum of P500,000?

No, Section 1(b), Rule 111 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure provides. the criminal action for
violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 shall be deemed to include the corresponding civil action. No
reservation to file such civil action separately shall be allowed.

Under SC Circular No. 57-97 dated September 16, 1997 the criminal action for violation of BP 22 shall be
deemed to necessarily include the corresponding civil action and no reservation to file such civil action
separately shall be allowed or recognized. The same Circular states Where the civil action has
heretofore been filed separately and trial thereof has not yet commenced. It may be consolidated with
the criminal action upon application with the court trying the latter case. If the application is granted the
trial of both actions shall proceed in accordance with the pertinent procedure outlined in Section 2(a) of
Rule 111 governing the proceedings in the actions as thus consolidated.

IV

a) Does the extinction of the penal action carry with it the extinction of the civil action?
The extinction of the penal action does not carry with it extinction of the civil action. However, the
civil action based on delict shall be deemed extinguished if there is a finding in a final judgment in
the criminal action that the act or omission from which the civil liability may arise did not exist.

b) Suppose the civil action was impliedly instituted in the criminal action, and after trial, the
accused was convicted and was also ordered to pay damages to the offended party, and the
accused appealed, does the death of the accused while his case is on appeal extinguish his civil
liability?

Sec. 4. Effect of death on civil actions. The death of the accused

after arraignment and during the pendency of the criminal action shall extinguish the civil
liability arising from the delict. However, the independent civil action instituted under section 3 of this Rule
or which thereafter is instituted to enforce liability arising from other sources of obligation may be
continued against the estate or legal representative of the accused after proper substitution or against
said estate, as the case may be. The heirs of the accused
may be substituted for the deceased without requiring the
appointment of an executor or administrator and the court may appoint a guardian ad litem for the
minor heirs.

X was charged with MURDER in an information filed with the RTC. No preliminary investigation was
conducted prior to the filing of the information. At his arraignment, he pleaded not guilty. Before the
commencement of trial, X filed a motion asking the court to direct the prosecution to conduct a
preliminary investigation. The trial court denied his motion. Is the trial court correct in denying Xs
motion. (Similar question with No.4 (IV) of October 2016)

Yes, the trial court is correct. X filed his motion after he already entered his plea of not guilty. He
demanded his right to preliminary investigation only after he had been arraigned. By nit asserting it
before arraignment and plea he has waived his right to preliminary investigation. (Ref: People vs.
Lambino, 103 Phil. 504)

VI

X filed a complaint with the NBI alleging that Y, who is a barangay captain, detained Xs husband on
June 19, 2016. The NBI directed Y to appear before it on June 26, 2016 to answer the charge of serious
illegal detention. When Y appeared at the NBI on June 26, 2016, he was arrested and detained. On
June 27, 2016, the NBI submitted its investigation report to the DOJ. That same day, City Prosecutor Z
conducted an inquest. On June 28, 2016 an information was filed with the RTC charging Y with serious
illegal detention

a) Is the inquest proper?

b) Should a preliminary investigation be first conducted prior to the filing of the information
c) Does the absence of preliminary investigation affect jurisdiction of the court?
 VII

Pemberton was charged with murder for the death of Laude But after trial he was convicted of
Homicide and sentenced to suffer a penalty of from 6-12 years of imprisonment. May Pemberton be
released on bail after his conviction?

a) If your answer is yes, is bail for him a matter of right or a matter of discretion? In what court
should he file his application for bail?
If your answer is no, why do you say so?
Yes, A Matter of Discretion on the Part of the Court. After conviction of the RTC of an offense not
punishable by death, reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment
b) RA 10389 Recognizance Act of 2012 provides that the release on recognizance of any person
in custody or detention for commission of an offense is a matter of right when the offense is
not punishable by death, RP or Life imprisonment
May Pemberton be released on recognizance?
Yes.

VIII

a) What is an arrest?
An arrest is the taking of a person into custody in order that he may be bound to answer for the
commission of an offense. Ref: Sec 1
b) Is a warrant required in an arrest made after entrapment

An arrest made after an entrapment operation does not require a warrant inasmuch as it is considered a
valid warrantless arrest, in line with the provisions of Rule 113, Section 5(a) of the Revised Rules of Court,
to wit:

Section 5. Arrest without warrant; when lawful.A peace officer or a private person may, without a
warrant, arrest a person:

(a) When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing, or is
attempting to commit an offense.

IX

a) What is a preliminary investigation?

Rule 112 Section 1. Preliminary investigation defined; when required. Preliminary investigation
is an inquiry or proceeding to determine whether there is sufficient ground to engender a well-
founded belief that a crime has been committed and the respondent is probably guilty thereof,
and should be held for trial.

Except as provided in Section 7 of this Rule, a preliminary

investigation is required to be conducted before the filing of a
compliant or information for an offense where the penalty
prescribed by law is at least four (4) years, two (2) months and one (1) day without regard to
the fine.

b) Who may conduct preliminary investigation?

(a) Provincial or City Prosecutors and their assistants;

(b) Judges of the Municipal Trial Courts and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts;
(c) National and Regional State Prosecutors; and
(d) Other officers as may be authorized by law.

OCTOBER 2017 MIDTERMS CRIMPRO

a) How is a criminal action for an offense punishable by RECLUSION PERPERTUA instituted?

b) Distinguish complaint from information

The following are the distinctions between complaint and information.

a) A complaint is subscribed by the offended party, any peace officer, or other public officer charged
with the enforcement of the law violated while an information is subscribed by the prosecutor;

b) A complaint is under oath, while an information need not be under oath;

c) A complaint is filed with the court either for preliminary investigation or for trial; an information is
filed with the court for trial.

c) What is the rule on substitution of a complaint or information?

If it appears at any time before judgement that a mistake has been made in charging the proper offense,
the court shall dismiss the original complaint or information upon the filing of a new one charging the
proper offense, provided that the accused would not plead in double jeopardy

It is a remedy when there is a violation of the accused to be informed of the nature and offense of the
charge against him.

II

III
 a) If the criminal action has already been instituted for the offense that was committed, may the
offended party file a separate civil action for the recovery of civil liability even if he has not
reserved his right to do so?

If the civil action is one to enforce a civil liability arising from the offense charged the offended party is
required to reserve his right to institute a separate civil action. But there are instances when reservation
is not allowed, and these are: (a) in criminal action for violation of BP. 22 where the corresponding civil
action is deemed included and therefore, no reservation to file such civil action separately shall be
allowed; (b) in criminal action filed with the Sandiganbayan where the criminal action deemed to
necessarily carry with it the filing of the civil action, and no right reserved the filing of such civil action
separately from the criminal action shall be recognized. (Refs: Sec. 1 (b); Sec. 4, PD 1606, as amended by
RA No. 8249)

The reservation of the right to institute a separate civil action shall be made before the prosecution starts
presenting its evidence and under circumstances affording the offended party a reasonable opportunity
to make such reservation.

But if the civil action is an independent civil action as provided for in Articles 32, 33, 34, and 2176 of the
Civil Code, the offended party is not required to make such reservation. Moreover, and independent civil
action may proceed simultaneously with and independently of the criminal action. (Ref: Sec. 3)

b) In the pending criminal action, the offended party reserved his right to institute a separate
civil action for the recovery of civil liability arising from the offense charged. While trial was
going on in the criminal action, the offended party instituted the civil action against the
accused. Then, the plaintiff, who was the offended party in the criminal action, filed a motion
in the court trying the civil action for the consolidation of the civil action with the criminal
action. The court where the civil action was filed granted the motion for consolidation. Is the
court correct?
No, because trial has already commenced. Rule 111 says that where the civil action has been
filed separately and trial thereof has not yet commenced, it may be consolidated with the
criminal action upon application with the court trying the latter case. If the application is
granted, the trial of both actions shall proceed in accordance with section 2 of this Rule
governing consolidation of the civil and criminal actions.

IV

a) In issuing the warrant of arrest, is the MTC Judge required to personally examine the
complaint and his witnesses by searching questions and answers?

No. The RTC Judge who issues the warrant of arrest is not required to personally examine the complaint
and his witnesses. Within ten days from the filing of the complaint or information, he shall personally
evaluate the resolution and supporting evidence submitted by the prosecutor regarding the existence of
probable cause, and on the basis thereof, and if he finds probable cause, issue a warrant of arrest.

HOWEVER if the offense does not require a PI and a complaint is filed he shall personally examine the
complaint and his witnesses by searching questions and answers. Ref: Sec. 6, Rule 112, Webb vs de Leon
247 SCRA 652.

b) When may the MTC Judge issue summons, instead of warrant of arrest?

If the complaint or information is filed with the MTC for an offense not requiring preliminary
investigation (because the penalty prescribed by law therefor is less than 4:2:1), the MTC Judge may
issue summons instead or warrant of arrest, if he finds probable cause, but he is satisfied that there is no
necessity for placing the accused under custody.

Briefly, the requisites are: a. the case does not require preliminary investigation; b. the MTC Judge finds
probable cause; and c. there is no necessity for placing the accused under custody.

VI

a) May the accused waive his right to be present at the arraignment?

No, an accused cannot waive his right to be present at the arraignment

b) What are the duties of the court if the accused pleads guilty to a capital offense?

The judge must:

a. Notify the prosecutor of the hearing of the application for bail or require him to submit his
recommendation.

b. Conduct a hearing of the application for bail regardless of whether or not the prosecution refuses to
present evidence to show that the guilt of the accused is strong for the purpose of enabling the court to
exercise its discretion.

c. Decide whether the evidence of guilt of the accused is strong based on the summary of the evidence of
the prosecution.

d. If the evidence of guilt of the accused is not strong, discharge the accused upon the approval of the
bail bond. Ref: People vs Cabral, 303 SCRA 361, Feb. 18, 1999

c) At his arraignment, the accused refused to enter his plea. Whereupon the court entered a plea
of not guilty for him. Before the pre-trial, the accused moved to quash the information on the
ground that the information charges more than one offense. The prosecution opposed the
motion, arguing that the failure of the accused to move to quash before arraignment
amounted to a waiver of such objection. Is the prosecution correct?
Yes, because the accused may move to quash the complaint or information only before he enters his
plea. But, as an exception, a motion to quash may be entertained by the court even after the accused has
already entered his plea if the ground therefor is any of the following:

a. The facts charge do not constitute an offense

b. The court has no jurisdiction over the offense charged
c. The criminal action or criminal liability has been extinguished, and
d. The accused has been previously convicted or acquitted of the offense charged, or the case
against him was dismissed or otherwise terminated without his express consent.
In the case at bar the ground that the information charges more than one offense does not
qualify in one of the exceptions mentioned above Ref: People vs Nitafan, et al., GR No. 107964-
66, Feb. 1, 1999

VII

a) X was convicted of homicide by the RTC. In its judgement of conviction, the RTC considered
recidivism as an aggravating circumstance. X appealed the judgement to the CA. is X still
entitled to bail during the pendency of his appeal?
No, Bail is neither a matter of right or discretion after conviction by the RTC, and the penalty
imposed is more than 6 years and the accused is a recidivist , quasi-recidivist, habitual
delinquent, or has committed the crime aggravated by reiteration as provided in the Rules of
Court.

b) X was charged with murder. But the RTC convicted him of homicide. X seasonably filed a
notice of appeal. Then, he filed with the RTC an application for bail contending that he is
already entitled to bail because the crime for which he was convicted is only homicide. May
the RTC in the exercise of its discretion grant X application for bail?
No. by reason of his appeal, his conviction for the lesser offense of homicide brings him to his
original situation as he was before the judgment, that is, that he is charged with a capital
offense where the evidence of guilt is strong. The appellate court may still find him guilty of
murder. Obosa vs CA, et al., Jan 16, 1997
c) If the judgement of conviction is already final, is the accused still entitled to bail?

NO, however it is a matter of discretion if after conviction of the RTC of an offense not punishable by
death, reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment;

d) May a person charged in court with homicide be released on recognizance?

Yes

VIII

a) What are the distinctions between a motion to quash and a Motion for provisional dismissal?
Motion to quash must be in writing and signed by the accused or his counsel while a Motion for
Provisional Dismissal may be made orally in open court. Motion to quash may be filed only on the nine
grounds mentioned in Rule 117 as it is a class in itself while Provisional Dismissal may be filed on any
ground or for no reason at all. A Motion to Quash can be filed by the accused while in Provisional
Dismissal it may be filed by the accused, the prosecutor jointly by both. Motion to Quash must be filed at
any time before the accused enters a plea while in Provisional dismissal it may be filed at any time even
after the accused has entered a plea.

b) X was charged in court with homicide. When arraigned, he entered a plea of not guilty. The
case was then set for pre-trial. But before the pre-trial, he filed a motion to quash, alleging
that the facts charged do not constitute an offense. The prosecution opposed the motion
arguing that it was too late for the accused to move to quash because he had already entered
his plea. The court however granted the motion to quash and dismissed the case for lack of
probable cause.
1) Is the prosecution correct in saying that it was too late for X to file the motion to
quash?

No the prosecution is not correct in saying that it was too late for X to file the motion to
quash. As provided for in Rule 117 of the Rules of Court an accused may still file for a
motion to quash after he pleads provided it is any of the following grounds:

1. That the facts charged does not constitute an offence.

2. That the court trying the case has no jurisdiction over the offense charged
3. That the criminal liability or action has extinguished
4. That the accused has been previously convicted or acquitted of a similar offense or
that the case against him was dismissed without his express consent.

In the present case the ground for X to file for a motion to quash is valid as it is one of
the exceptions provided for in Rule 117. Therefore theprosecution is not correct in saying
that X can not file anymore.

2) Is the court correct in dismissing the case?

Yes, the court is correct in dismissing the case as the motion to quash is valid.

POSSIBLE QUESTIONS:

1. Instances when the court may enter a plea of not guilty for the accused

1. Accused refuses to enter a plea

2. Through Counsel he wants to preserve or avail of other remedies such as PI and MTQ
3. When the accused enters a conditional plea of guilty
 4. In criminal cases involving violations of environmental law

When plea is invalid it will nullify all proceedings including judgement if arraignment is void.

2. Bail may be cancelled upon

a. Motion of the Bondsman

1. Surrender of the Accused

2. Death of the Accused

b. Automatically

1. Dismissal of the case

2. Acquittal of the accused

3. Execution of Final Judgement

3. DISQUALIFICATION FOR RELEASE ON RECOGNIZANCE

(a) The accused bad made untruthful statements in his/her sworn affidavit prescribed under
Section 5(a);

(b) The accused is a recidivist, quasi-recidivist, habitual delinquent, or has committed a crime
aggravated by the circumstance of reiteration;

(c) The accused had been found to have previously escaped from legal confinement, evaded
sentence or has violated the conditions of bail or release on recognizance without valid
justification;

(d) The accused had previously committed a crime while on probation, parole or under
conditional pardon;

(e) The personal circumstances of the accused or nature of the facts surrounding his/her case
indicate the probability of flight if released on recognizance;

(f) There is a great risk that the accused may commit another crime during the pendency of the
case; and

(g) The accused has a pending criminal case which has the same or higher penalty to the new
crime he/she is being accused of.