CRIMPRO FINALS (2017)

1. Manyakis Yacky has a crush on Alindog Jogs but never noticed him. Tired of waiting for Alindog Jogs to
notice him, Manyakis Yacky waited for Alindog Jogs outside her school on November 5, 2016. When he
saw, Manyakis Yacky forcefully took her, tied her arms and legs in his car, and brought her to his house.
While in his house, Manyakis Yacky laid her on the bed, facing Manyakis Yacky, who went on top of her
and raped her. After he raped her, he took his favorite stabile highlighter (neon green) and inserted it in
her anal orifice. Having satisfied his carnal desires, Manyakis Yacky set Alindog Jogs free, who proceeded
to the police station. She also had herself medically examined. An Information for Kidnapping (First
Information) and 2 other informations for 2 counts of rape for – when Manyakis Yacky mounted her and
raped her (Second Information) and for when he inserted the stabile highlighter into her anal orifice (Third
Information) – were issued against Manyakis Yacky on November 23, 2016. The Second Information was
filed against Manyakis Yacky and he pleaded guilty. He was subsequently convicted for rapong Alindog
Jogs when he mounted and raped her. When the First and Third Informations were filed against Manyakis
Yacky, he sought to quash the First and Third Informations on the gound of double jeopardy.
a. Should the First and Third Informations be quashed on the grounds of double jeopardy? Why or
why not? (15%)

2. SPO1 Usisero and his team of police officers, SPO1 Pebble and SPO1 Stone, have been conducting
surveillance on Kerwin Espasol, who appears to be masterminding the commission of Treason. SPO1
Usisero, Pebble, and Stone, to strengthen their case, resorted to wire-tapping Kerwin Espasol’s cellular
phone, without his knowledge nor consent. They heard from Kerwin’s conversations that he is working
together with the US Government in the planned Treason and that they have sent 10,000 firearms to
Kerwin Espasol, to be used in said crime. They learned from the conversations that the firearms are
specifically “marked” and that they were for “treason.” Using the recorded conversations of Kerwin with
the US Government, the police were able to secure a Search Warrant against Kerwin for the crime of
Treason. The Search Warrant mentioned the full name of Kerwin Espasol, his complete residence, and
the following objects: the 10,000 firearms to be used for the crime of treason, marked “treason.” When
the Search Warrant was enforced against Kerwin, the police found 10,000 firearms in his house marked
“Treason FTW.” The search and seizure were conducted in the presence of Kerwin. An information was
filed against Kerwin for conspiracy to commit treason. The records of the case were made available to
Kerwin and counsel. There they discovered that the basis for the issuance of the search warrant was the
recorded messages between Kerwin and the USA, and the affidavits attesting to the same. Kerwin moved
to quash the search warrant for having been based on the information obtained through wire tapping, in
violation of RA 4200, and hence, inadmissible. The court denied the motion because Kerwin was deemed
to have waived the right to object to the validity of the search warrant as he allowed the police to enter
his home, search it, and seize the firearms.
a. Is Kerwin deemed to have waived his right to object to the validity of the search warrant? Why or
why not? (10%)
b. Should the search warrant be quashed? Why or why not? (10%)
c. Assuming the police officers obtained a court order authorizing them to wire tap the phone lines
of Kerwin Espasol without his knowledge or consent, will the search warrant issued on the basis
of the wiretapped conversations and the affidavits attesting the same be valid? Why or why not?
(10%)

3. On June 1, 2016, San Miggy “Lakaz” Miguel went out to drink at the Palace Cool Klub with his friends. He
had too much to drink and was consequently driving drunk on his way home. This resulted in a vehicular
collision, where he hit a Kia Bridge vehicle, with two passengers, Tegy Bells and Daly Nadalusan. Tegy
was pronounced dead on arrival in Makatikati Higad Medical Hospital. Daly, on the other hand, was found
to have sustained slight physical injuries. Lakaz was charged with two separate offenses: (1) Reckless
Imprudence Resulting in Slight Physical Injuries (Criminal Case No. 82367) for injuries sustained by Daly
 (respondent Daly); and (2) Reckless Imprudence Resulting in Homicide and Damage to Property (Criminal
Case No. 82366) for the death of respondent Daly’s husband, Tegy, and damage to the Spouses’ vehicle.
Lakaz posted bail in both cases. Lakaz pleaded guilty to the charge in Criminal Case No. 82367 and was
meted out the penalty of public censure. Invoking this conviction, Lakaz moved to quash the Information
in Criminal Case No. 82366 for placing him in jeopardy of second punishment for the same offense of
reckless imprudence. The MeTC refused quashal. After unsuccessfully seeking reconsideration of the
order denying the quashal, Lakaz brought the matter to the RTC in a petition for certiorari (S.C.A No.
2803). Lakaz sought from the MeTC the suspension of proceedings in Criminal Case No. 82366, including
the arraignment, invoking S.C.A No. 2803) as a prejudicial question. Without acting on Lakaz’s motion,
the MeTc proceeded with the arraignment and, because of Lakaz’s absence, cancelled his bail and
ordered his arrest. The MeTC issued a resolution denying Lakaz’s motion to suspend proceedings and
postponing his arraignment until after his arrest. Relying on the arrest order againt Lakaz, respondent
Daly sought in the RTC the dismissal of S.C.A No. 2803 for Lakaz’s loss of standing to maintain a suit.
Lakaz constested the motion, claiming that he did not abscond.

Did Lakaz forfeit his standing to seek relief in S.C.A No. 2803 when the MeTC ordered his arrest following
his non-appearance at the arraignment in Criminal Case No. 82366?

4. On November 23, 2016, Yacky Manyakis raped Binibining Datibinata (Bb. D) by inserting his male
reproductive organ in what appeared to be Bb. D’s female reproductive organ. Yacky Manyakis was
charged and convicted with the crime of rape. The decision was promulgated on March 20, 2016, in the
presence of the parties. Yacky filed a motion for new trial, on the ground that Bb. D is actually a
transgender, on 5 April 2016. In other words, Bb. D was born make and only had a sex change. Yacky only
learned of the sex change on April 4, 2016, when Bb. D appeared on national television, being interviewed
by Boy Abundat, as the first transgender to have won a rape case committed against a transgender.
Considering that it was impossible for Yacky to rape Bb. D as he does not indeed have a natural female
organ but instead, a man made organ, Yacky Manyakis cannot be convicted of the crime of rape. Will
Yacky’s motion for New Trial prosper? (10%)

5. On September 2, 2016, Prodigaly Sonny (PS) killed his own father, Poppa Erps. PS was charged with
parricide. The prosecution presented evidence, showing the CCTV footage in PS’ home, where he was
recorded killing Poppa Erps. The crime was also witnessed by Kasim Bahay, the household helper who
worked in PS’ home. Kasim Bahay also testified that she had been working with the family for 30 years.
According to Kasim Bahay, PS, who is presently 25 years old, was actually Kasim’s own son with her
then boyfriend, Kousintahan, her first cousin. Since their love was … (putol yung pic huhu). After the
prosecution rested its case, PS timely filed a motion for leave to file demurrer to evidence, on the ground
that the prosecution’s own evidence failed to establish the crime of parricide because the prosecution’s
own witness testified that there was no relationship of father and son between PS and Poppa Erps, since
PS was never formally adopted. The court granted leave. After the demurrer to evidence was filed, the
court ruled on it and dismissed the case since no crime was committed as there was no father and son
relationship between PS and Poppa Erps. The prosecution filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 with
the CA, assailing the decision of the trial court for having been issued with grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. PS opposed the petition for being an improper remedy,
considering that the imposable penalty for parricide is reclusion perpetua and hence, the proper remedy
is by Notice of Appeal to the Court of Appeals under Rule 41.
a. Is PS correct? Why or why not? (10%)
b. Was there grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of the
RTC? Why or why not?
6. Utang Paramore borrowed ₱1Million from Gastos Pamore, payable in 1 year. When the loan matured,
Utang failed to pay Gastos despite repeated demands. Gastos filed an action for collection of sum of
money against Utang. During the court annexed mediation, the parties agreed to settle the case. They
entered into a compromise agreement where Utang shall issue 10 post-dated checks to pay for the loan
on installment. The compromise agreement was submitted for the approval of the court. Pending
resolution of the court, the first check was dishonored. Gastos applied for issuance of preliminary
attachment against Utang Pamore, which was granted by the court. Utang sought to quash the writ of
attachment considering that the case was purely civil and there was no ground for the issuance of the
same.
a. Is Utang correct? Why or why not? (10%)
b. What are the requisites for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction? (5%)