1. What is the remedy if the judgment is not put in writing?

a) Petition for Certiorari.

b) Petition for Annulment of Judgment.
c) Petition for Mandamus. Compel the judge to put in writing the decision of
the court.
d) Ordinary Appeal.

2. The judgment becomes final when:

a) Death penalty is imposed.
b) When the defendant voluntarily submits to the execution of the judgment.
c) When the accused applies for probation. Section 7, Rule 120
d) None of the above.
e)
3. A judgment need not be read in the presence of the accused and any judge of
the court in which it was rendered. When the judge is absent or outside the
province or city, the judgment may be promulgated by the clerk of court.
a) Both the statements are true.
b) Both the statements are false.
c) The first statement is true while the second statement is false.
d) The first statement is false while the second statement is true. Section
6, Rule 120

4. A was convicted of the crime of estafa which was decided by Judge B. Upon
appeal Judge C rendered a decision affirming the decision of Judge B. A now
contends that Judge C cannot pen the decision because he is different from
the judge who heard the testimonies of the witness and was in no position to
render a judgment, as he did not observe firsthand their demeanor during trial.
Is As contention tenable?
a) Yes, the same judge should render decisions regarding the same case.
b) Yes, to avoid miscarriage of justice.
c) No, by relying on the records the judge can promulgate his decision. It
does not render the judgment erroneous especially where the evidence on
record is sufficient to support its conclusion. (People v. Alfredo, April 16,
2012)
d) None of the above.

5. Promulgation in Absentia is allowed in the following instances, except:

a) The judgment is for a light offense, in which case, the accuseds counsel or
representative may stand for him.
b) The judgment is for acquittal.
6. Castillo is the offended party in a criminal case filed against Superable.
Castillo made a reservation to institute the civil action for the recovery of the
civil liability ex delicto. During the pendency of the criminal proceedings,
Castillo filed an application in the criminal proceedings for the issuance of a
preliminary writ of attachment on the ground that the accused has concealed,
removed or disposed of his properties. Rule on the motion.

A. The application should be granted. Under the Rules, provisional remedies in

civil actions, insofar as they are applicable, may be availed of in a criminal
proceeding. In the present case, the provisional remedy of preliminary
attachment is appropriate to secure the satisfaction of the civil liability ex
delicto.
B. The application should be denied. The provisional remedies available in
criminal proceedings are proper only where the civil liability ex delicto
has not been expressly waived or the right to institute such action
separately has not been reserved in those cases where reservation may
be made.
C. The application should be granted. Since the application for the issuance of a
writ of preliminary attachment was filed before the entry of judgment, the writ
shall issue as a matter of right in favor of the applicant. The court may not
exercise its discretion on the application.
D. The application should not be granted. Provisional remedies are not available
in criminal proceedings. It is available only when the civil liability ex delicto
has not been expressly waived or the right to institute such action separately
has not been reserved in those cases where reservation may be made.
7. Tomarong filed a civil action against Balanay for the recovery of civil liability
arising from an alleged delict. Subsequent to the filing of the civil action, a
criminal action was filed against Balanay for the alleged delict. Since a
prejudicial question existed, the prior civil action was suspended by the
institution of the criminal action. In order to protect her interests, Tomarong
filed an application for the issuance of a writ of preliminary attachment in the
civil proceedings. Rule on the application.

A. The application must be denied. The suspension of the civil action bars the
civil court from issuing any order or judgment until the resolution of the
criminal proceedings. It includes the allowance of any application for
provisional remedies.
B. The application must be granted. Where the civil action arising from a
criminal offense is suspended by the filing of the criminal action, the
court wherein said civil case is pending can issue auxiliary writs since
such orders do not involve a determination of the merits of the case.
C. The application must be denied. Tomarong must file the application in the
criminal proceedings. The suspension of the civil action gives the court
 hearing the criminal action the jurisdiction to issue auxiliary writs for the
protection of the rights of the offended party.
D. The application must be granted. Provisional remedies are not available in
criminal proceedings. These may only be availed of in civil actions.

8. Parrone instituted a criminal action against De Guzman for unjust vexation.

Parrone alleged that De Guzman intentionally flashes their house at night
using a giant spotlight. Despite filing the case, De Guzman continued the
vexing act. During the pendency of the criminal action, Parrone applied for the
issuance of a writ of preliminary prohibitory injunction to require De Guzman
to refrain from performing the vexing act. Upon the hearing of the application,
De Guzman made an opposition contending that provisional remedies are not
applicable in their case. Is De Guzman correct?

A. Yes. Under the Rules, provisional remedies are applicable only in civil cases.
Since the action between Parrone and De Guzman are criminal in nature, the
provisional remedies shall not apply.
B. No. Under the Rules, provisional remedies in civil actions may be
availed of in criminal actions insofar as they are applicable. Since
Parrone may be entitled to the relief by virtue and nature of the criminal
action she instituted, the remedy may be availed.
C. Yes. Under the Rules, only provisional remedies affecting the civil action
deemed instituted with the criminal action may be availed of. Since the
provisional remedy sought for does not seek to secure the satisfaction of the
civil liability, the remedy is not available.
D. No. Under the Rules, provisional remedies shall issue as a matter of right to
the applicant. The court may not use its discretion unless compelling
circumstances so warrant.

9. Danduan stole money from Lubay in order to buy a plate of sizzling gambas.
Lubay instituted a criminal action against Danduan and during the pendency
of the action she applied for the issuance of the writ of preliminary attachment
to make sure that her civil claim would be satisfied. Should the trial court grant
the application?

A. Yes. Under the Rules, provisional remedies shall issue as a matter of right to
the applicant. The court may not use its discretion unless compelling
circumstances so warrant.
B. No. Under the Rules, in criminal proceedings, attachment is proper only
when (i) the accused is about to leave the Philippines; (ii) when the
accused is a person in a fiduciary capacity; (iii) when the accused has
 concealed, removed, or disposed of his property, or is about to do so; or
(iv) when the accused resides outside the Philippines.
C. Yes. Since the application was filed before the entry of judgment, as required
under the Rules, it must be granted.
D. No. Under the Rules, provisional remedies are applicable only in civil cases.
Since the action between Danduan and Lubay are criminal in nature, the
provisional remedies shall not apply.

10. Doran held Rabanal at gunpoint and demanded that the latter give him her
one-of-a-kind glass Hello Kitty hairpin. After an intensive manhunt by the
police, Doran was caught and charged with robbery. During the pendency of
the action, Rabanal applied for the issuance of a writ of preliminary
attachment on the ground that she learned that Dorans family are starting to
hide his properties. Doran opposed the application on the ground that belief
that his properties would be concealed is not among those expressly provided
for under the Rules. Decide.

A. The application should not be granted. Under the Rules, provisional remedies
are applicable only in civil cases. Since the action between Doran and
Rabanal are criminal in nature, the provisional remedies shall not apply.
B. The application should be granted. Under the Rules, in criminal
proceedings, attachment is proper only when (i) the accused is about to
leave the Philippines; (ii) when the accused is a person in a fiduciary
capacity; (iii) when the accused has concealed, removed, or disposed of
his property, or is about to do so; or (iv) when the accused resides
outside the Philippines.
C. The application should not be granted. Under the Rules, provisional remedies
in criminal case may only be granted if the applicant can show the court that
there are justifiable circumstances to grant the application. Mere belief that
the properties of the accused are going to be hidden is not a justifiable
excuse.
The application should be granted. Since the application was filed before the entry of
judgment, as required under the Rules, it must be granted.

11. The following are grounds of motion to quash, except:

a) Lack of preliminary investigation. - The enumeration of the grounds is
exclusive. (People v. Yutila, GR No. L-32791, January 27, 1981)
b) The facts charged do not constitute an offense.
c) It does not conform substantially with the prescribed form.
d) None of the above.

12. Granting of motion to quash is a final order. Denial of motion to quash is an

interlocutory order.
a) Both the statements are true.
b) Both the statements are false.
c) The first statement is true while the second statement is false.
d) The first statement is false while the second statement is true.

13. Respondents filed with the Pasay City Prosecutor a complaint for violation of
the Corporation Code against petitioners who are the president and the
corporate secretary of AAA Corp. Respondents alleged that petitioners
refused to show the stock and transfer book. A complaint was then filed
before the MTC of Pasay City. On the same day, petitioners filed an urgent
motion for judicial determination of probable cause and to defer the issuance
of warrants of arrest pending determination. This was denied and thus they
filed for certiorari under rule 65 with RTC of Pasay City which was granted. It
directed the MTC to dismiss the case for want of probable cause.
Respondents brought the appeal to the SC via a petition for review on
certiorari. While the appeal was pending, MTC dismissed the case. The
respondents filed a motion for reconsideration which the MTC granted. Upon
learning that a petition for certiorari had been filed before the SC, the MTC
issued an order of revival. The petitioners argue that the order of revival would
place them in double jeopardy. Is the petitioners argument correct?
a) Yes, MTC still has the jurisdiction over the criminal case.
b) No, MTC has already lost its jurisdiction. Under S7, R117, in order that
there will be double jeopardy, the conviction, acquittal or termination must be
made by a court of competent jurisdiction. Once the case has been appealed
and given due course by this Court, the lower court or court of origin could no
longer take cognizance of the issue under review. It cannot execute the
judgment appealed from because to do so would constitute encroachment on
the exclusive appellate jurisdiction o this Court. Since the MTC clearly had no
jurisdiction to issue the order of Dismissal, there can be no double jeopardy.
(Quiambao v. People, September 17, 2014)
c) Yes, to prevent miscarriage of justice.
d) No, there was no conviction rendered by the court.

14. Respondent Corporation filed a criminal case against petitioner for violation of
BP 22 before the MTC of Caloocan City. In the absence of a representative
and private counsel, the case was provisionally dismissed on June 8, 2016
pursuant to S8, R117. The representative of the corporation received a copy
of such order on July 2, 2016 while her counsel a day after (July 3). On July 2,
2017, respondent through her counsel filed a motion to revive the criminal
case. The accused opposed the motion on the ground that the provisional
dismissal had become permanent since more than 1 year had lapsed from the
issuance of the order of provisional dismissal. The accused also argued that
both the motion to revive and the court order of revival must be made within
the one-year period. May the criminal case be revived?
a) No, the decision became final and executory.
b) Yes, in the interest of justice.
c) No, MTC has lost its jurisdiction over the case.
d) Yes, it is still within the 1 year period to revive. Although the provision
states that the order of dismissal shall become permanent one year after the
issuance thereof without the case having been revived, the provision should
be construed to mean that the order of dismissal shall become permanent one
year after service of the order of dismissal on the public prosecutor who has
control of the prosecution without the criminal case having been revived. If the
offended party is represented by a private counsel the rule is that the
reckoning period should commence to run from the time such private counsel
was actually notified of the order of provisional dismissal. (Co. V. New
Prosperity Products Inc. June 30, 2014)

15. There is double jeopardy when a subsequent complaint or information was

filed containing a crime that is:
a) The same offense.
b) An attempt to commit said offense.
c) Any offense which necessarily includes the first offense charged.
d) None of the above.
e) All of the above.
16. Dizon and Vizcarra are husband and wife. During their marriage, Vizcarra had
extramarital relations with another woman. Feeling heart broken, Dizon filed
an action for the annulment of their marriage on the ground of psychological
incapacity. The court granted the action and annulled the marriage. Despite
her best efforts, she still felt hurt and betrayed. She then decided to institute a
criminal action for concubinage against Vizcarra and the other woman. Will
the action prosper?

A. Yes. Concubinage is a private crime and may only be prosecuted if the

offended spouse initiates the action. Since the action was initiated by Dizon,
the criminal action will prosper.
B. No. Corollary to the exclusive grant of power to the offended spouse to
institute the action, it necessarily follows that such initiator must have
the status, capacity or legal representation to do so at the time of the
filing of the criminal action. Since the marriage has already been
annulled, Dizon no longer had the capacity to institute the criminal
action.
C. Yes. Concubinage is now considered as a crime against persons. One of the
effects of this reclassification is that the crime may now be prosecuted by the
state even without participation of the offended spouse.
D. No. The crime of concubinage may be prosecuted only against the offending
spouse. Since Dizon filed the information not only against Vizcarra but also
against the paramour, the information is defective and must fail.
17. Espinas is the public prosecutor in an arson case. Tresvalles, the lawyer of
the offended party, wanted to present evidence to prove the amount of
damages sustained by the offended party. However, Espinas refused to
present the evidence in court in the belief that the evidence would weaken
their case against the accused. Tresvalles argued that the fiscals authority to
supervise and control the conduct of the case extends only to the criminal
aspect of the case and not on the civil aspect instituted therein. Is Tresvalles
correct?

A. Yes. The fiscal may only direct the conduct of the criminal aspect of a case.
The control over the conduct of the civil aspect falls exclusively within the sole
responsibility of the private prosecutor.
B. No. The supervision and control of the prosecutor extends to the civil
liability instituted with the criminal action if it was not filed separately or
reserved.
C. Yes. The fiscal and the private prosecutor share the responsibility of directing
the conduct of the criminal case, both in its criminal and civil aspects.
D. No. The supervision and control of the civil aspect of a criminal case is
attributable primarily to the private prosecutor unless he/she expressly confers
such authority to the public prosecutor.

18. Hipolito was charged with the crime of usurpation of real property. However,
the information did not state the name and surname of the person against
whose property the offense was committed. Hipolito filed a motion to quash
the information on the ground that the name of the offended party should have
been stated in the information. Rule on the motion.

A. The motion must be granted. Under the Rules, the name and surname of the
person against whom or against whose property the offense was committed
must be stated in the complaint or information. It is an indispensable
requirement. Absent such name and surname or appellation thereof, the
complaint or information is void.
B. The motion must be denied. In cases of offenses against property, the
designation of the name of the offended party is not absolutely
indispensable for as long as the property is described with such
particularity as to properly identify the offense charged.
C. The motion must be granted. Omission of the name and surname of the
offended party is a violation of the constitutional right of the accused to be
informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him.
D. The motion must be denied. The inclusion of the name and surname of the
offended party is not a requisite to determine the sufficiency of the complaint
or information.
19. Espinas kidnapped Dizon at Makati City. He brought her to his hideout at
Tagaytay City where he was eventually arrested. An information for
kidnapping was filed against Espinas at the RTC of Cavite which has
jurisdiction over Tagaytay City. Espinas filed a motion to dismiss on the
ground of improper venue alleging that the proper venue of the action was at
Makati City. Rule on the motion.

A. The motion must be granted. In all criminal prosecutions, the actions must be
instituted and tried in the court of the municipality or territory where the
offense was committed or any of its essential ingredients occurred. Since the
kidnapping was actually done at Makati City, the action must be instituted at
the RTC of Makati City.
B. The motion must be denied. Kidnapping is a continuing offense and
such offenses must be tried by any court of jurisdiction in which the
defendant may be found.
C. The motion must be granted. Kidnapping is not a continuing offense because
the all the elements of the crime were already committed at the time of the
deprivation of liberty at Makati City. Since all the elements of the crime were
performed only at Makati City, the crime may only be prosecuted at Makati
City.
D. The motion must be denied. Under the Doctrine of Preliminary Jurisdiction,
when two or more courts have concurrent jurisdiction, the first to validly
acquire it has jurisdiction to the exclusion of the other or the rest. Since the
RTC of Makati City and RTC of Cavite may both try the case, the institution of
the criminal action at the RTC of Cavite excludes the prosecution at the RTC
of Makati City.

20. Katigbak was charged with the crime of unjust vexation. During trial, the
prosecution presented evidence which would prove an aggravating
circumstance. Katigbak opposed the presentation of the evidence on the
ground that the same was not specified in the complaint or information. Rule.

A. The accused is not correct. There is no provision under the Rules requiring
the prosecution to specify the aggravating circumstances. It is only required
that the complaint or information state the designation of the offense given by
the statute and the acts or omissions constituting the offense.
B. The accused is correct. Every complaint or information must state not
only the qualifying but also the aggravating circumstances; otherwise,
the same cannot be properly appreciated.
C. The accused is not correct. Under the Rules, in addition to the designation of
the offense and the acts or omissions complained of, only the qualifying
circumstances, not the aggravating circumstances, are required to be
specified in the complaint or information.
D. The accused is correct. As a rule, circumstances tending to affect the penalty
or the nature of the crime need not be specified in the complaint or
information. The exception is when the circumstance is an aggravating
circumstance, in which case, must be specified in the complaint or
information.