Frequently asked questions in previous digitalized Bar Examinations; Right to be informed (Part I).
Frequently asked questions in previous digitalized Bar Examinations; Right to be informed (Part I)
One of the most frequently asked topic in the Bar examinations is the Constitutional right of every person, even accused, to be informed of the "nature and cause of accusations against him or her". This right is based on the general Criminal Law principle that everyone is presumed innocent in any criminal prosecution. As a result, the 1987 Philippine Constitution provides:
“Any person under investigation for the commission of an offense shall have the right to be informed of his right to remain silent and to have competent and independent counsel preferably of his own choice. If the person cannot afford the services of counsel, he must be provided with one. These rights cannot be waived except in writing and in the presence of counsel.” (Sec. 12 (1), Article III, 1987 Constitution).
Ads.
 |
| ▶️ Watch here |
“No person shall be held to answer for a criminal offense without due process of law.” (Sec. 14 (1) Article III, 1987 Constitution).
"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall be presumed innocent until the contrary is proved, and shall enjoy the right to be heard by himself and counsel, to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him, to have a speedy, impartial, and public trial, to meet the witnesses face to face, and to have compulsory process to secure the attendance of witnesses and the production of evidence in his behalf. However, after arraignment, trial may proceed notwithstanding the absence of the accused: Provided, that he has been duly notified and his failure to appear is unjustifiable." (Sec. 14 (2), Article III, 1987 Constitution).
No ex post facto law or bill of attainder shall be enacted. (Sec. 22, Article III, 1987 Constitution).
Ads.
 |
| ▶️ Watch here |
The following are some notable Bar questions concerning the protection of one's right to know the nature and cause of an accusation leveled against him or her.. (2020_2021 and 2022 Bar examinations):
If you believe this Website/Page has helped you with your legal studies and keeping up with current events, please consider supporting us by clicking ads once a day.
This is how our Pages work and how we will continue to provide valuable content related to laws and jurisprudence.
POLITICAL LAW
[ Q#2, Political Law. Bar 2022]
Pedro was the accused in a rape case. During the trial, the private complainant testified that on the night of the incident, she was walking home when Pedro, who was her neighbor, suddenly grabbed her and brought her to his house. There, Pedro forcibly had carnal knowledge of her. After the prosecution rested its case, Pedro testified that the sexual intercourse between him and the private complainant was consensual. Eventually, the trial court acquitted Pedro on reasonable doubt and found that the element of force was not established.
The People filed a Rule 65 petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA), alleging that the trial court’s decision was rendered with grave abuse of discretion because the private complainant's testimony clearly established that Pedro had carnal knowledge of her through force and without her consent. In his comment, Pedro sought to dismiss the petition on the ground of violation of his right against double jeopardy.
As the CA, how would you rule on the petition? Explain briefly. (5 points)
[Q#13, Political Law. Bar 2022]
Pursuant to a law ordering the fixing of “just and reasonable standards, classifications, regulations, practices, or services to be furnished, observed and imposed by operators of public utility vehicles,” the Land Transportation Franchise and Regulatory Board (LTFRB) promulgated and published a regulation that “no car beyond six years shall be operated as a taxi.” Taxi operators assailed the validity of the regulation contending that procedural due process was violated because position papers were not asked of them and no notice was given to them prior to the issuance of the regulation.
Were the taxi operators denied procedural due process? Explain briefly. (5 points)
[Q#2, Political Law. Bar 2020/2021]
A law is passed penalizing any criticism of any sitting Member of the Supreme Court on any media platform. The penalty is higher when the criticism is made through social media.
Is this law constitutional? Explain briefly.
Note. For this lesson, apply the political law principle of “over broad” in relation to accused’s Constitutional right to be informed.
Ads.
 |
| 2023 Bar Exam Quiz Cards Reviewer for ₱150 - ₱500. |
Ads.
 |
| ▶️ Watch here |
Ads.
 |
| ▶️ Watch here |
Ads.
.jpeg) |
| ▶️ Watch here |
ads.
ang buhay mo? Este ang books 
mo?LAW BOOK FLAGS / FILING TABS
Shop here: https://go.shopple.co/spm01i
More @ https://shopple.co/Lex-curiae
Visit 
"Bar techniques"
: Abubot ni atorni
CRIMINAL LAW
Jesusa, a mayoralty candidate of the Municipality of Jaen, Nueva Ecija during the 2019 local elections, was ambushed and gunned down by Jhudas, a gun for hire. Jhudas was arrested at a COMELEC checkpoint just after the incident. The firearm he used, a baby Armalite, was verified to be without any license. During the interrogation, Jhudas admitted that Pontio, the rival mayoralty candidate of Jesusa, paid him Php 1,000,000.00 to assassinate Jesusa. Due to Jhudas’ admission, coupled with the sworn statement of an eyewitness, the prosecutor filed two Informations, one for Murder and one for Illegal Possession of Firearm, against both Jhudas and Pontio.
If you believe this Website/Page has helped you with your legal studies and keeping up with current events, please consider supporting us by clicking ads once a day.
This is how our Pages work and how we will continue to provide valuable content related to laws and jurisprudence.
Do you agree with the prosecutor’s charges against Jhudas and Pontio? Explain briefly. (5 points).
Note.
For this lesson, relate the criminal law principle of "one offense, one charge" and the Firearms Act as amended to the accused's constitutional right to be informed. It is respectfully submitted that a separate charge for Illegal Possession of Firearm was not proper because under the prevailing jurisprudence,
"If homicide or murder is committed with the use of an unlicensed firearm, such use of an unlicensed firearm shall be considered as an aggravating circumstance.
Read G.R. No. 206381 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. DANIEL MATIBAG y DE VILLA @ "DANI" or "DANILO"
As a result, they should be charged in one information—Jhudas as principal through direct participation, and Pontio as principal through inducement.
[Q#11, Criminal Law. Bar 2022]:
On May 15, 2013 at around 3:00 a.m., Lucy, Mary, and Raphael were on board a passenger jeepney, with Raphael behind the wheel. They were traversing the highway on the southbound lane.
Meanwhile, a Virgen Bus, driven by Kiko, was traveling along the northbound lane. Kiko overtook the vehicle in front of him, which caused him to occupy the opposite lane where the jeepney was on. With the Virgen Bus traveling at a high speed, Raphael tried to avoid the collision but failed. The bus hit the jeepney which resulted in Raphael’s death, serious physical injuries to Lucy and Mary, and extensive damage to the jeepney amounting to Php 500,000.00.
The public prosecutor filed two Informations charging Kiko for two separate offenses: (i) Reckless Imprudence resulting in Serious Physical Injuries for the injuries suffered by the passengers; and (ii) Reckless Imprudence resulting in Homicide and Damage to Property for Raphael’s death and the damage to the jeepney.
Is the public prosecutor correct? Explain briefly. (5 points)
Note.
“Article 365 of the Revised Penal Code, which punishes criminal negligence or quasi-offenses, furnishes the middle way between a wrongful act committed with wrongful intent, which gives rise to a felony, and a wrongful act committed without any intent which may entirely exempt the doer from criminal liability. It is the duty of everyone to execute his own acts with due care and diligence in order that no prejudicial or injurious results may be suffered by others from acts that are otherwise offensive (Aquino, R.P.C. Vol. III, 1976, Ed., p. 1884). What is penalized is the mental attitude orcondition behind the acts of dangerous recklessness and lack of care or foresight although such mental attitude might have produced several effects or consequences (People vs. Cano, L 19660, May 24, 1966).”
Read: VENANCIO M. SEVILLA vs. People [G.R. No. 194390 August 13, 2014]
[Q#10, Criminal Law. Bar 2022]
During the 2022 national elections, Bern posted on her Facebook page a statement that Alfredo, an incumbent mayor vying for re-election, has a pending corruption case with the Sandiganbayan for pocketing Php 20,000,000.00 of public funds under his custody. Czarina, Bern’s friend, saw the post and commented online, stating: “Bhie, true yan. Alfredo is so corrupt. Marami ding binabahay yan. Sugarol pa!” Donnabel, also Bern’s friend, reacted to Bern’s post by clicking the “like” button. Another person, Justine, who is a stranger to Bern and her friends, but who claims to be a crusader for good governance, came across the said post. Finding it relevant to her advocacy and crusade, Justine shared the link to Bern’s post on her Twitter account.
Who among Bern, Czarina, Donnabel, and Justine, if any, are liable for the crime of Cyberlibel? Explain briefly. (5 points)
Note.
For this lesson, relate the criminal law principle of “nullum crimen nulla poena sine lege” and the political law principle of “overbreadth.”
Nullum crimen nulla poena sine lege.
“Nullum crimen nulla poena sine lege” means that no punishment be carried out unless done so in accordance with a law that is certain and unambiguous. Criminal law must be specific otherwise, it will violate one’s right to be informed of the nature and cause of accusation against him or her.
Article 21 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC) thus provides:
“Penalties that may be imposed. - No felony shall be punishable by any penalty not prescribed by law prior to its commission.” (Art. 21, RPC).
Overbreadth
Overbreadth is closely related to its constitutional cousin, vagueness. A regulation of speech is unconstitutionally vague if a reasonable person cannot distinguish between permissible and impermissible speech because of the difficulty encountered in assigning meaning to language
Note.
See also [Q#9, Criminal Law. Bar 2020/2021]:
During one of their intense operational meetings, the campaign manager of a presidential candidate openly suggested, “Dapat ipapatay na lang natin ang mga bumabatikos sa kandidato natin.”
Later, the campaign manager was charged with the crime of Proposal to Commit Murder.
Can the campaign manager be convicted of the offense charged? Explain briefly.
Note. For this lesson, apply also Article 21 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC) and doctrine of “Nullum crimen nulla poena sine lege”
[Q#14, Criminal Law. Bar 2022]:
On February 25, 2019, Bob approached Edward to borrow Php 100,000.00 purportedly to settle some obligations, promising that he would pay the loan using a postdated check. Convinced by Bob's promises of repayment with interest, and because of their closeness as former classmates in high school, Edward agreed to lend the said amount. As payment, Bob made, drew, issued in favor of, and delivered to Edward in the latter's residence at No. 112 Maria Orosa St., Ermita, Manila, CBC Savings Bank Check No. 32710 postdated August 25, 2019 in the amount of Php 105,000.00. When the check was presented for payment on its due date in CBC Savings Bank Quezon City Branch, it was dishonored due to: “Drawn Against Insufficient Funds” (DAIF).
On January 22, 2020, Edward sent a demand letter to Bob to pay the face value of the check, but said demand, although received by Bob, was not heeded. Hence, the check remained unpaid, with no arrangement for its payment.
Draft the appropriate Information, complete with caption and title, charging Bob for violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22. (5 points)
REMEDIAL LAW
[Q#10, Remedial Law I, Bar 2022]:
An Information for Murder was filed against the accused Demo and Onyok. It reads:
“That on or about the 9th day of March 2008, in the City of Las Piñas, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above- named accused, conspiring and confederating together and both of them mutually helping and aiding each other, without justifiable motive, with intent to kill and with treachery and abuse of superior strength, did then and there knowingly, unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault and use personal violence upon one Angel Rosario, by then and there repeatedly hitting and beating his head with a baseball bat, thereby inflicting upon the latter mortal injury which caused his death.
Contrary to law.”
The accused filed a motion to quash on the ground that the Information does not conform substantially to the prescribed form.
Is the accused correct? Explain briefly. (5 points)
[Q#11 Remedial Law I, Bar 2022]:
Cain was indicted under an Information charging him with the crime of Murder. He was caught by the police in flagrante delicto as the incident happened in a public place with many witnesses present. Videos of the incident were also posted online which the judge was able to watch.
During his arraignment, Cain pleaded guilty to the crime charged. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) accepted the plea because it was made voluntarily and with full understanding of the consequences. The RTC directed the prosecution to present evidence to prove Cain’s guilt. However, the prosecution failed to present any evidence during the scheduled hearings. The RTC then ruled and found Cain guilty beyond reasonable doubt based solely on his plea of guilt.
Was Cain’s conviction proper? Explain briefly. (5 points)
[Q#7 Remedial Law II, Bar 2022]:
Alex, Bobbie, and Gabbie were charged with the crime of Murder. Finding them to have acted in conspiracy, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) convicted them of Homicide. Only Bobbie appealed the conviction with the Court of Appeals (CA). Consequently, an entry of judgment was issued as against Alex and Gabbie.
Subsequently, the CA modified Bobbie’s conviction from Homicide to Murder. In the same judgment, the CA likewise modified Alex and Gabbie’s conviction from Homicide to Murder.
Upon learning of the CA’s decision, Alex and Gabbie confronted Bobbie, saying:
“Bakit ka pa ba nag-appeal? Tumaas tuloy ang sentensya namin. Nadamay pa kami!” Bobbie snapped back: “Bakit parang galit kayo? Pero bakit kasalanan ko? Parang kasalanan ko?”
Was the CA correct in modifying the judgment as to Alex and Gabbie? Explain briefly. (5 points).
[Q#1 Remedial Law, Bar 2020/21]:
A search warrant was issued authorizing the police to search for and seize: “(a) documents that will show that the respondent is guilty of swindling and/or estafa; (b) copies of bounced checks; and (c) all other relevant matters.”
Is the search warrant valid? Explain briefly.
[Q#5 Remedial Law, Bar 2020/21]:
In an Information, a man was charged with having forcible carnal knowledge of a 16-year-old woman. The Information did not contain any allegation concerning the victim's relationship with the accused.
During the direct examination of the victim, the prosecution was able to elicit information that the accused was the 16-year-old woman's father. The defense counsel failed to object to the testimony, having also been surprised by the revelation.
After trial, the judge convicted the accused of simple rape and imposed the corresponding penalty. The prosecution moved for reconsideration, claiming that the accused should be convicted of qualified rape and not simple rape because the relationship between the victim and the accused was proven, even as it had not been alleged in the Information.
Is the prosecution legally correct? Explain briefly.
If you believe this Website/Page has helped you with your legal studies and keeping up with current events, please consider supporting us by clicking ads once a day.
This is how our Pages work and how we will continue to provide valuable content related to laws and jurisprudence.
Comments
Post a Comment