Crim Pro Bar Q&A Year 2017

Del Rosario, Abby Gail G.
2018-0513
Topic : Prosecution of Civil Action

Year : 2017
Question No. : 18
Tomas was criminally charged with serious physical
injuries allegedly committed against Darvin. During the
pendency of the criminal case, Darvin filed a separate civil
action for damages based on the injuries he had
sustained.
Tomas filed a motion to dismiss the separate civil action

on the ground of litis pendentia, pointing out that when
the criminal action was filed against him, the civil action
to recover the civil liability from the offense charged was
also deemed instituted. He insisted that the basis of the
separate civil action was the very same act that gave rise
to the criminal action.
Rule on Tomas' motion to dismiss, with brief reasons. (5%)

Suggested :
Answer The motion to dismiss should be denied. Darvin’s civil
action is based on physical injuries, and is therefore an
independent civil action which may proceed independently
of the criminal case (Article 33, Civil Code). However,
Darvin cannot recover damages twice for the same act or
omission charged in the criminal action (Rule 111, Section
2, Rules of Court).
As the Supreme Court ruled in People v. Lipata (G.R. No.

200302, April 20, 2016), “[t]he independent civil actions in
Articles 32,33,34, and 2176, as well as claims from
sources of obligations other than delict, are not deemed
instituted with the criminal action but may be filed
separately by the offended party even without reservation”.
Topic : Preliminary Investigation
Year : 2017
Question No. : 4c
When does a public prosecutor conduct an inquest instead
of a preliminary investigation? (2%)
Suggested : Under Rule 112, Section of the Rules of Court, a public
Answer prosecutor conducts inquest instead of a preliminary
investigation when a person is lawfully arrested without
an arrest warrant involving an offense which requires a
preliminary investigation.
Topic : Arrest
Year : 2017
Question No. : 19
Boy Maton, a neighborhood tough guy, was arrested by a

police officer on suspicion that he was keeping prohibited
drugs in his clutch bag. When Boy Maton was searched
immediately after the arrest, the officer found and
recovered 10 sachets of shabu neatly tucked in the inner
linings of the clutch bag. At the time of his arrest, Boy
Maton was watching a basketball game being played in the
town plaza, and he was cheering for his favorite team. He
was subsequently charged with illegal possession of
dangerous drugs, and he entered a plea of not guilty when
he was arraigned.
During the trial, Boy Maton moved for the dismissal of the
information on the ground that the facts revealed that he
had been illegally arrested. He further moved for the
suppression of the evidence confiscated from him as being
the consequence of the illegal arrest, hence, the fruit of the
poisonous tree.
The trial court, in denying the motions of Boy Maton,

explained that at the time the motions were filed Boy
Maton had already waived the right to raise the issue of
the legality of the arrest. The trial court observed that,
pursuant to the Rules of Court, Boy Maton, as the
accused, should have assailed the validity of the arrest
before entering his plea to the information. Hence, the trial
court opined that any adverse consequence of the alleged
illegal arrest had also been equally waived.
a. Comment on the ruling of the trial court. (5%)
Suggested :
Answer The trial court is correct insofar as Boy Maton is
considered to have waived his objections to the illegality of
his arrest. In Villanueva v. People (G.R. No. 199042,
November 17, 2014), the Supreme Court held that
objections to the irregularity of arrest must be made before
his arraignment. In this case, Boy Maton made no
objection to the irregularity of his arrest before his
arraignment. Hence the trial court is correct when it ruled
that Boy Maton had already waived his right to question
the illegality of his arrest. Any irregularity attending the
arrest of an accused “should be timely raised in a motion
to quash the information at any time before arraignment,
failing [in] which, he is deemed to have waived” hid right to
question the regularity of his arrest (People v. Cunanan,
G.R. No. 198924, March 16, 2015).
However, the trial court erred when it ruled that Boy

Maton likewise waived his right to assail the illegal search.
In the Villanueva case, the Supreme Court ruled that “a
waiver of an illegal arrest is not a waiver of an illegal
search.” It further held that “while the accused has
already waived his right to contest the legality of his
arrest, he is not deemed to have equally waived his right to
contest the legality of the search.” Therefore, Boy Maton
may still move for the suppression of the evidence
confiscated from him being the consequences of the illegal
arrest.
Topic : Bail
Year : 2017
Question No. : 3B
When is bail a matter of judicial discretion? (2%)
Suggested : Under Section 5, Rule 114 of the Rules of Court, bail is a
Answer matter of discretion when the accused has been convicted
by the RTC for an offense not punishable by death, life
imprisonment, or reclusion perpetua, provided that no
circumstance mentioned in the third paragraph of such
section is present, to wit: a) flight risk, b) offense
committed while on probation or conditional pardon, c)
accused is a recidivist, quasi-recidivist, habitual
delinquent, has committed a crime aggravated by
reiteracion, d) there is undue risk that the accused may
commit another crime during the pendency of the appeal,
e) that the accused is an escapee, or has violated the
conditions of his bail without valid justification.
Topic : Arrest
Year : 2017
Question No. : 3C
Give at least two instances when a peace officer or a
private person may make a valid warrantless arrest. (2%)
Suggested : Under Section 5, Rule 113 of the Rules of Court, a peace
Answer officer or a private person may make a valid warrantless
arrest in the following instances:
1. When, in his presence, the person to be arrested

has committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to
commit an offense;
2. 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; and
3. 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.

Crim Pro Bar Q&A Year 2017

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Crim Pro Bar Q&A Year 2017

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Crim Pro Bar Q&A Year 2017

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Del Rosario, Abby Gail G.

Topic : Prosecution of Civil Action

Tomas filed a motion to dismiss the separate civil action

Rule on Tomas' motion to dismiss, with brief reasons. (5%)

As the Supreme Court ruled in People v. Lipata (G.R. No.

Topic : Preliminary Investigation

Boy Maton, a neighborhood tough guy, was arrested by a

The trial court, in denying the motions of Boy Maton,

However, the trial court erred when it ruled that Boy

1. When, in his presence, the person to be arrested

2. When an offense has just been committed, and he

3. When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who

You might also like