Page |1

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
(Midterm Examination)

INSTRUCTIONS

1. Read each question very carefully and write your answers in your Examination Notebook in the same order the questions
are posed. Write your answers only at the front, not the back, page of every sheet in your Examination Notebook. In your
answers, use the numbering system in the questionnaire.

2. Answer the Essay questions legibly, clearly, and concisely. A mere "Yes" or "No" answer without any corresponding
explanation or discussion will not be given any credit.

3. Start each number on a separate page. An answer to a sub-question under the same number may be written continuously
on the same page and the immediately succeeding pages until completed.

4. Read all the questions first before you start answering.

HAND IN YOUR NOTEBOOK WITH THIS QUESTIONNAIRE

I.
By information dated June 3, 2009, A,B and C were charged with Murder of L
under the following Information:

“That on or about December 31, 2007, in the City of Davao,

By Decision dated June 13, 2013, the trial court found A, B and C guilty beyond
reasonable doubt, the crime of Murder. The trial court ruled that A, B and C’s defense
of alibi cannot prevail over the positive testimony of the eyewitnesses to the crime.
They conspired in killing L. Although A was the only one who actually stabbed L,
accused B and C participated therein by preventing L’s friend from coming to his
rescue. The trial court pointed out that treachery attended L’s death because he was not
able to defend himself when suddenly A grabbed his hair, causing him to fall to the
ground, and then stabbed him. Is the conviction for Murder of the trial court correct?
Explain your answer with legal basis.

II.
An Information was filed before the Sandiganbayan charging R with violation of
Sec. 3(e) of R.A. 3019. The Information accuses R of entering into numerous security
service contracts with VP from 2002 to 2012 absent the required public bidding, thereby
giving the latter unwarranted benefits. During trial and before the prosecution presented
its last witness on April 5, 2018, it filed a Motion for Leave of Court to File Amended
Information dated March 27, 2018 seeking to amend the amount stated in the
Information from Php7,843,054.33 to Php7,842,941.60, which is the amount reflected in
the disbursement vouchers. In opposition thereto, R argued that the amendment is not
merely formal but substantial, which would be prejudicial to his right to be informed of
the charges against him. In a Resolution dated April 27, 2018, the Sandiganbayan
denied the prosecution’s motion for lack of merit. It ruled that the mistake in the amount
of the alleged undue injury stated in the Information is too substantial to have been left
uncorrected for more than a year. Moreover, it held that the alleged difference could not
 Page |2

be ruled out as a mere typographical error. Is the ruling of the Sandiganbayan correct?
Explain with legal basis.
III.
On December 6, 2011, the Secretary of Justice released Department Order (D.O.)
No. 1007 creating a fact-finding panel to investigate the alleged kidnapping and
extortion of Owo, a Japanese national, by several agents of the NBI. In the report, in the
report, the fact-finding panel recommended that Gin be included in those to be indicted.
On January 26, 2012, Gin filed a Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition before the RTC
praying that D.O. No. 1007 be declared unconstitutional. On February 13, 2012, Owo
filed a complaint for kidnapping and serious illegal detention against Gin. Upon
subpoena to him, Gin prayed that the preliminary investigation be suspended pending
the resolution of his petition for certiorari and prohibition in the RTC. The motion was
denied by the fact-finding panel of the DOJ. Is the resolution on the motion correct?
Explain with legal basis.
IV.
Rowi was charged with violation of the Homicide. Upon Arraignment, Rowi
pleaded not guilty to the charge. Trial on the merits ensued. On August 29, 2017, the
RTC rendered its Decision finding Rowi guilty. The RTC, initially granted R the right
to bail. Eventually, however, the RTC cancelled the bail on the ground of possibility of
flight as Rowi failed to appear on several court hearings. Is the revocation of the bail
under the circumstance proper? Explain with legal basis.

V.
A Complaint was filed by Brian against Danilo for allegedly shooting the former
along C-3 Road, Navotas City. After recording the incident in the police blotter, four
police officers, together with Resco, proceeded to the house of Danilo. They informed
Danilo about the Complaint lodged against him and invited him to the police station
where he was subjected to a body search and, in the process, a plastic sachet of shabu
was recovered from the left pocket of his pants. Danilo was charged with violation of
Section 11, Article II of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9165. Was the warrantless arrest
valid? Explain with legal basis.

VI.
The original Information alleged that on October 16, 1992, petitioner Danilo
Buhat, armed with a knife, unlawfully attacked and killed one Ramon George Yu while
the said two unknown assailants held his arms, "using superior strength, inflicting . . .
mortal wounds which were . . . the direct . . . cause of his death" In filing this
information, the prosecutor expressly designated it as one for Homicide. After
arraignment, the prosecution moves to amend the original Information by changing the
express designation of the crime charged from homicide to Murder. Can this be
allowed? Explain.
VII.
A. When is bail a matter of right?
B. When is bail discretionary?

VIII.
In a wedding party, Alonzo, Rances, Salamat and Santos were drinking together
at the same table. While waiting to be seated, a certain Pedrito was introduced by the
 Page |3

groom to the group as his nephew. Pedrito and his companions took their seats at the
table across Alonzo’s table. After some time, Pedrito stood up to urinate at the back of
the house. Santos passed a bag to Salamat, and they followed Pedrito. Rances likewise
followed them. A shot rang out. Pedrito died. Salamat was seen placing a gun inside the
bag as he hurriedly left. The wedding guests ran after Salamat. They saw him and
Rances board a vehicle being driven by Santos. The groom sought the help of Alonzo to
chase the culprits. He refused and even disavowed any knowledge as to their identity.
The groom filed a complaint for murder against Salamat, Rances, Santos, Alonzo and a
certain Atienza. A preliminary investigation was conducted by the Assistant Provincial
Prosecutor and it was recommended that Salamat be charged with murder as principal,
and Santos and Rances as accessories. With regard to Alonzo and Atienza, the
prosecutor found that no sufficient evidence was adduced to establish their conspiracy
with Salamat. Judge Concepcion of the RTC issued an Order directing the Office of the
Provincial Prosecutor to amend the information, so as to include all the aforenamed
persons as accused in this case, all as principals. Does the court have the authority to
review and reverse the resolution of the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor or to find
probable cause against a respondent for the purpose of amending the Information.
Explain with legal basis.
IX.
A. On his way home, a member of the Caloocan City police force witnesses a bus
robbery in Pasay City and effects the arrest of the suspect. Can he bring the suspect to
Caloocan City for booking since that is where his station is? Explain briefly.

B. A was charged with a non-bailable offense. At the time when the warrant of arrest
was issued, he was confined in the hospital and could not obtain a valid clearance to
leave the hospital. He filed a petition for bail saying therein that he be considered as
having placed himself under the jurisdiction of the court. May the court entertain his
petition? Why or why not?

X.
Discuss the Facts, Issues and Ruling in the following cases:

A. People vs. Lara, G.R. No. 19987, August 13, 2012