1) PREJUDICIAL QUESTION:

Agnes filed an action for annulment of her marriage to Xander on the ground of vitiated consent.
During the pendency of the annulment case, Xander was charged with bigamy after it was found that
her marriage to Alexandra is still subsisting when he married Agnes.
a) Is the action for annulment of marriage prejudicial to a bigamy case?
b) Assuming that it is prejudicial, may the court motu propio order the dismissal of the criminal action?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
a) NO. An action for annulment of marriage is prejudicial to a bigamy case only if the accused in the
bigamy charge is also the one asking for annulment of the second.This is because in such a case, if
the court declares that the partys consent is indeed vitiated and annuls the marriage, then it would
mean that the party didnt willingly commit the crime of bigamy. It would thus be determinative of the
guilt and innocence of the accused. (SEC. 7 Rule 111).
b) No, the court can only suspend the criminal action upon a petition but it has no authority to order its
dismissal (SEC. 6 Rule 111).

2. EFFECT OF DEATH ON CIVIL ACTIONS

During the pendency of a criminal action, Bangky (the accused) dies after arraignment.
a) What shall be the effect of his death to the civil liabilities arising from the delict?
b) Is it the same effect when Bangky dies before arraignment?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
a) Civil liabilities arising from the delict shall be extiguished. However, independent civil action
(Rule111 Sec 3) 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. (Rule 111 Sec 4)
b) No. The case shall be dismissed without prejudice to any civil action the offended party may file
against the estate of the deceased.(Rule 111 Sec 4)
3. MOTION TO QUASH
Police operatives of the Parak Police District, Philippine National Police, applied for a search warrant
in the RTC for the search of the house of Mari Juana and the seizure of an undetermined amount of
shabu.The team arrived at the house of Mari Juana but failed tofind her there. Instead, the team found
Shasha Bupa. The team conducted a search in the house of Mari Juana in the presence of Shasha
Bupa and barangay officials and found ten (10) grams of shabu. Shasha Bupa was charged in court
with illegal possession of ten grams of shabu. Before her arraignment, Shasha Bupa filed a motion to
quash the warrant on the following grounds:
(a) it was not the accused named in the search warrant; and

(b) the warrant does not describe the article to be seized with sufficient particularity.
Resolve the motion with reasons.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The motion to quash should be denied. The name of the person in the search warrant is not important.
It is not even necessary that a particular person beimplicated (Mantaring v. Roman, A.M. No. RTJ93-904, February 28, 1996), so long as the search is conducted in the place where the search
warrant will be served. Moreover, describing the shabu in an undetermined amount is sufficiently
particular. (People v. Tee, G.R. Nos. 140546-47, January 20, 2003)
4. VENUE
Where is the proper venue for the filing of an information in the following cases?
a) The theft of a car in Pasig City which was brought to Obando, Bulacan, where it was cannibalized.
b) The theft by X, a bill collector of ABC Company, with main offices in Makati City, of his collections
from customers in Tagaytay City. In the contract of employment, X was detailed to the Calamba
branch office, Laguna, where he was to turn in his collections.
c) The malversation of public funds by a Philippine consul detailed in the Philippine Embassy in
London.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
(a) The proper venue is in Pasig City where the theft of the car was committed, not in Obando where it
was cannibalized. Theft is not a continuing offense. (People v Mercado, 65 Phil 665).
(b) If the crime charged is theft, the venue is in Calamba where he did not turn in his collections. If the
crime of X is estafa, the essential ingredients of the offense took place in Tagaytay City where he
received his collections, in Calamba where he should have turned in his collections, and in Makati City
where the ABC Company was based. The information may therefore be filed in Tagaytay City or
Calamba or Makati which have concurrent territorial Jurisdiction. (Catingub vs. Court of Appeals,
121 SCRA 106).
(c1) The proper court is the Sandiganbayan which has jurisdiction over crimes committed by a
consul or higher official in the diplomatic service. (Sec. 4(c). PD 1606, as amended by RA. No.
7975). The Sandiganbayan is a national court. (Nunez v. Sandiganbayan, 111 SCRA 433 [1982]. It
has only one venue at present, which is in Metro Manila, until RA. No. 7975, providing for two other
branches in Cebu and in Cagayan de Oro, is implemented.
(c2) Assuming that the Sandiganbayan has nojurisdiction, the proper venue is the first RTC in which
the charge is filed (Sec. 15(d). Rule 110).
5. SECONDARY EVIDENCE
In a case for carnapping a Lamborgini Aventador, Neal Caffrey (the accused) offered in evidence a
Certified True Copy of the Registration Certificate of the said motor vehicle under his name issued by
the Land Transportation Office. The complainant vehemently objected to the admissibility of the
evidence stating that it's merely a stamped photocopy of the original and invoked the Best evidence
rule.

Is the evidence admissible?

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
YES. When the original of document is in the custody of public officer or is recorded in a public office,
its contents may be proved by a certified copy issued by the public officer in custody thereof. (Sec 7
Rule 130)