1. The Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over the offense.

The Sandiganbayan has

jurisdiction over all cases involving violations of RA 3019, RA 1379 and of Chapter 2
Sec 2 Book2 Title VII of the RPC, including executive officials, which a mayor is a part
of.
Jurisprudence holds that a dismissal of an administrative case is not a basis for the
dismissal of a criminal case. The purpose of administrative proceedings is to protect
the public service, which is based on public trust. On the other hand, the purpose of
criminal proceedings is the punishment of a crime.
2. The complaint is invalid. Under the Rules of Court, a private crime such as adultery
can only be prosecuted upon the complaint of the offended spouse. In this case, it is
H2 which is the offended spouse. Thus H2 should be the one who files the complaint.
3. Sonia is wrong. The general rule is that the civil aspect of a BP 22 case cannot be
separately filed from the criminal case. However, the exception to the rule is when the
civil case is filed before the criminal case. In this case, the civil case was filed first,
thus it can proceed independently from the criminal case.
4. According to the case of Agbayani, libel cases where the offended party is a public
official may be filed in the RTC where the article was first published or at the RTC of
the city or province where the official held office at the time of the commission of the
crime.
In this case, Emery may file at the RTC of Pasay only (place of office).
For internet articles, saan yung place where it was first published?
5. Oliver is wrong. All the elements of the crime, as well as the agravating
circumstances, were contained in the Information. What happened is this case is only
a formal amendment.
A formal amendment is allowed after arraignment when it does not prejudice the
rights of the accused. The tests are (1) when the original defense of the accused can
still stand; and (2) when the orignal evidence presented is still applicable. Since the
substance of the Information is still the same, the defense and evidence of the
accused would not be prejudiced.
Question: Were the agravating circumstances properly stated?
6. Bernard is incorrect. According to Sec. 14, Rule 110, formal or substantial
amendments may be made at any time without leave of court before the accused
enters his plea. Bernard's defense in this case is only applicable if he aleady entered
his plea when the amendment was made.
7. The court acted correctly. Under the rules of court, the civil case is deemed
instituted with a criminal case unless the offended party waives the civil action,
reserves the right to institute it separately, or institutes the civil case before the
criminal case.
Since Bong was silent as to the civil aspect, it is deemed instituted with the criminal
case and the court has the right to render judgment on the civil aspect of the case.

8. Under the Rules of Court, for a prejudicial question to exist, there must be a civil
case which was instituted prior to the criminal case and that the resolution of the issue
in the civil case determines whether or not the criminal case may proceed.
In this case, the administrative case with the HLURB is in the nature of a civl case. The
action could not be instituted elsewhere because HLURB had exclusive jurisdiction
over such cases. The determination of whether or not Mela was an authorized
representative is a prejudicial question which would determine whether or not ABC
Homes would be criminally liable.
9. The complaint filed by Cynthia was sufficient. The Court ruled in the case of
Senador that the erroneous designation of the offended party in an Information is
fatally defective when the subject matter is generic and unidentifiable. However, when
the subject matter is specific, an error in the designation of the offended party is
immaterial.
10. The Court cannot grant Alan's motion to dismiss. Under the Rules of Court, civil
cases under Art. 31, 32, 33, 34, and 2176 of the civil code can proceed independently
from the criminal cases. Under Art 33, a civil case for damages resulting from physical
injuries may proceed independently from the criminal case.
11. The PI was valid. Under the Rules, an accused must be furnished a copy of the
complaint of the offended party and any witnesses he may produce. However, the
Rules does not mandate that copies of the affidavits of the co-accused be furnished to
the accused.
12. Mark is incorrect. Once an Information is filed in court, the case is already within
the jurisdiciton of such court. Any recomendation of the prosecutor is not binding upon
the court. Once the Information is filed with the court, the dismissal of the case or the
acquittal or conviction of the accused lies within the discretion of the court.
13. Jake's motions are valid. The warrantless arrest by the police was invalid. An officer
may arrest without a warrant when (a) in his presence, the person to be arrested has
committed, is committing, or is attempting to commit a crime; (b) when an offense has
just been committed and he has probable cause to believe based on personal
knowledge of the facts and circumstances that the person to be arrested has
committed the offense; and (c) when the person to be arrested has escaped from a
penal establishment.
This case falls within the 2nd circumstance when an offense has just been committed
and he has probable cause to believe based on personal knowledge of the facts and
circumstances that the person to be arrested has committed the offense. For this
provision to be applicable, the crime should have been JUST committed.
In this case, the crime was committed a week prior to the arrest. Jurisprudence also
holds that if a warrantless arrest was done one day after the commission of the
offense, such arrest would be invalid.
Since the warrantless arrest was invalid, the evidence seized from such arrest would
be inadmissible.
14. Di ko alam haha