Anda di halaman 1dari 2

1.

In a case that involve a search of office particulars is to prevent injustice or


computer assigned to a government do justice in the case when that
employee who was then charged cannot be accomplished without the
administratively and was eventually aid of such a bill. (Virata vs. SB)
dismissed from the service. The
employees personal files stored in the 3. Is a motion to quash proper in the case
computer were used by the government that there is a supposed ambiguity in a
employer as evidence of his misconduct. valid information?

Was the search conducted on petitioners No. the SC ruled that the proper
office computer and the copying of his remedy to a supposed ambiguity in an
personal files without his knowledge and otherwise valid information is merely
consent alleged as a transgression on to move for a bill of particulars. It is
his constitutional right to privacy? applicable if the information charges
an offense, but the averments are so
No. The CSC in this case had vague that the accused cannot
implemented a policy that put its prepare to plead or prepare for trial.
employees on notice that they have (Enrile vs. Pp)
no expectation of privacy in anything
they create, store, send or receive on 4. What is escape doctrine?
the office computers, and that the
CSC may monitor the use of the There are two kinds of escape. The
computer resources using both first escape is when after
automated or human means. This arraignment, when he is tried in
implies that on-the-spot inspections absentia. The second escape is during
may be done to ensure that the the promulgation of judgment, so the
computer resources were used only accused loses his right to appeal. But
for such legitimate business that right is restored if he appeared
purposes. within 15 days.

A search by a government 5. From summary procedure, appealed to


employer of an employees office is RTC, what procedure will be followed?
justified at inception when there are
reasonable grounds for suspecting The procedure in regular court shall
that it will turn up evidence that the be followed.
employee is guilty of work-related
misconduct. (Pollo vs. CSC) 6. All the accused were convicted of the
crime of kidnapping for ransom and
1. Is the accuseds right to question the sentenced to death by the trial court.
legality of his arrest considered waive in More than 2 years, the accused filed an
the case that he applied for bail? urgent motion to re-open the case on the
ground of the Sinumpaang Salaysay
No. the SC ruled that by applying for executed by two of their co-accused that
bail, the accused did not waive his they have not participated in the
right to challenge the regularity of the commission of the offense. Will you grant
arrest. (Leviste vs. Almeda) the re-opening of the case?

2. What is the purpose of the bill of Yes. I will grant it, and remand the
particulars? case to the trial court for the
reception of the newly discovered
Its purpose is to define, clarify, evidence. (People vs. Licayan) Note:
particularize, limit, or circumscribe this case is pro hac vice
the issues in the case, to expedite the
trial, and assist the court. A general 7. The SC held that while there is a
function or purpose of a bill of fundamental law requires a mandatory
review by the SC of cases where the Supreme Court by petition for review
penalty imposed is death, reclusion on certiorari in accordance with Rule
perpetua, and life imprisonment, nowhere 45.
has it prohibits an intermediate review. A
prior determination by the CA on the Mode of appealAn appeal to the
factual issues would minimize the Supreme Court may be taken only by a
possibility of an error of judgment before petition for review on certiorari, except in
it is elevated to the SC. (People vs. criminal cases where the penalty imposed
mateo) is
1. death,
8. The court issued 42 general warrants. Is it reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment
valid? notice of appeal to the CA (not SC, PP v.
Mateo).
No. Search warrants issued were
violative of the Constitution, thus,
illegal. The warrant did not
particularly specify the things to be
seized. The purpose of the
requirement is to avoid placing the
sanctity of the domicile at the mercy
of the whims, caprice or passion of
peace officers. (Stonehill vs. Diokno)

Modes of appeal.

a. Ordinary appeal.The appeal to the


Court of Appeals in cases decided by
the Regional Trial Court in the exercise
of its original jurisdiction shall be
taken by filing a notice of appeal with
the court which rendered the
judgment or final order appealed from
and serving a copy thereof upon the
adverse party. No record on appeal
shall be required except in special
proceedings and other cases of
multiple or separate appeals where the
law or these Rules so require. In such
cases, the record -on appeal shall be
filed and served in like manner.

b. Petition for review.The appeal to the


Court of Appeals in cases decided by
the Regional Trial Court in the exercise
of its appellate jurisdiction shall be by
petition for review in accordance with
Rule 42.

c. Appeal by certiorari.In all cases


where only questions of law are raised
or involved, the appeal shall be to the

Anda mungkin juga menyukai