Anda di halaman 1dari 2

FINALS PRACTICE COURT

1. Explain the so called duplicity of the offense.


Suggested Answer:
The general rule is that a complaint or an information must charge only one offense.
However, in certain cases, more than one offense may be charged as when the law
prescribes a single punishment for various offenses (Sec. 13, Rule 110, Rules of Court).
The so-called duplicity of offense refers to a single complaint or information charging the
accused of two or more offenses. The accused must object to such fact before trial. If he
fails to do so, the court may convict him of as many offenses as are charged and proved,
and impose on him the penalty for each offense. (Sec. 3, Rule 120, Rules of Court)

2. What are the requisites for a prejudicial question?


Suggested Answer:
Rule 111, Section 7 states the elements of a prejudicial question, to wit:
1. The previously instituted civil action involves an issue similar or intimately related to the issue
raised in the subsequent criminal action, and
2. The resolution of such issue determines whether or not the criminal action may proceed.
3. Jurisdiction to try said question must be lodged in another tribunal

3. Distinguish jurisdiction over the subject matter from jurisdiction over the person of the accused.
Suggested Answer:
Jurisdiction over the subject matter refers to the authority of the court to hear and
determine a particular criminal case. Jurisdiction over the subject matter is conferred by
law. It is this kind of jurisdiction which cannot be stipulated by the parties nor can it be
conferred upon the court by the accused either through an express waiver or otherwise.
Jurisdiction over the person of the accused refers to the authority of the court, not over
the subject matter of the criminal litigation, but over the person charged. This kind of
jurisdiction requires that "the person charged with the offense must have been brought
in to its forum for trial, forcibly by warrant of arrest or upon his voluntary submission to
the court"

4. Enumerate the instances when a warrantless arrest is lawful.


Suggested Answer:
Warrantless Arrests: (Section 5, Rule 113, ROC)
1. When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing, or is
attempting to commit an offense; (In flagrante delicto)
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; (Hot Pursuit)
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. (Fugitive from
Justice)
4. If a person lawfully arrested escapes or is rescued, any person may immediately pursue or
retake him without a warrant at any time and in any place within the Philippines
5. Arrest of accused out on bail. For the purpose of surrendering the accused, the bondsmen may
arrest him or, upon written authority endorsed on a certified copy of the undertaking, cause
him to be arrested by a police officer or any other person of suitable age and discretion.

5. Expound on the meaning and importance of arraignment.


Suggested Answer:
Arraignment is the formal mode and manner of implementing the constitutional right of
an accused to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him. Without
arraignment, the accused is not deemed to have been informed of such accusation. If
before his arraignment, the accused escapes, the court has no authority to try him in
absentia. Thus, arraignment is a prerequisite before the accused may be tried in absentia.
The accused is to be arraigned before the court where the complaint or information was
filed or assigned for trial. It is made in open court by the judge or clerk and consists of
furnishing the accused with a copy of the complaint or information and the reading of the
same in a language he understands. He is then asked whether he pleads guilty or not
guilty.

6. What are the exceptions to the hearsay rule?


Suggested Answer: (CADD-PC-FLEET)
1. Commercial lists and the like (Sec. 45, Rule 130)
2. Act or declaration against pedigree (Sec. 39, Rule 130)
3. Declaration against interest (Sec. 38, Rule 130)
4. Dying declarations (Sec. 37, Rule 130)
5. Part of the res gestae (Sec. 42, Rule 130)
6. Common reputation (Sec. 41, Rule 130)
7. Family reputation or tradition regarding pedigree (Sec. 40, Rule 130)
8. Learned treatises (Sec. 46, Rule 130)
9. Entries in the course of business (Sec. 43, Rule 130)
10. Entries in official records (Sec. 44, Rule 130)
11. Testimony or deposition at a former trial (Sec. 47, Rule 130).

7. When A loaned a sum of money to B, A typed a single copy of a promissory note which they both
signed. A made two photocopies of the promissory note, he gave 1 copy to B and retaining the
other copy. A entrusted the type written copy to his counsel. The copy with A was destroyed when
the law office was burned. As counsel of A how will you prove the loan given to A by B?
Suggested Answer:
The loan given by A to B may be proved by secondary evidence through the xeroxed
copies of the promissory note. The rules provide that when the original document is lost
or destroyed, or cannot be produced in court, the offerer, upon proof of its execution or
existence and the cause of its unavailability without bad faith on his part, may prove its
contents by a copy, or by a recital of its contents in some authentic document, or by the
testimony of witnesses in the order stated. (Sec. 5 of Rule 130).

8. A was accused of having raped X. Rule on the admissibility of the following piece of evidence: A
pair of short pants allegedly left by A at the crime which the court, over the objection of A,
required him to put on, and when he did, it fit him well.
Suggested Answer:
The pair of short pants, which fit the accused well, is circumstantial evidence of his guilt,
although standing alone it cannot be the basis of conviction. The accused cannot object
to the court requiring him to put the short pants on. It is not part of his right against self-
incrimination because it is a mere physical act.

9. Fallen by a bullet upon being fired at, Santos before expiring told Romero, a passerby who came
to his rescue, I was shot by Pablo, our neighbor. May Romeros testimony on what was told to
him by Santos be offered and admitted in the separate civil action for damages brought by the
heirs against Pablo?
Suggested Answer:
The statement is admissible. A dying declaration, as in the facts in the case at bar, may be
offered in a civil case provided that the cause and circumstances of the death of the
declarant are the subjects of inquiry.

10. The prosecution presented in evidence a newspaper clipping of the report of a reporter during
the press conference stating that X admitted the robbery. Is the newspaper clipping admissible
against X?
Suggested Answer:
Yes. It is a non-hearsay evidence if offered for the purpose of showing X indeed made
such statement to the reporter regardless of the truth or falsity of the statement. Such
evidence then would fall under the classification of an independent relevant statement.
However, it would be hearsay if offered to prove the truth that X was indeed the robber.