Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 2

Good evening. Instead of holding class this week, I will be giving you a take-home quiz.

The
questions are below. You must e-mail your answers to jonas.azura@gmail.com by 12mn
tomorrow, 27 July 2016. Answers received after the deadline will not be accepted.

As this is a take-home quiz, the honesty policy will be in effect. You are encouraged to discuss
among yourselves, but plagiarism of answers (particularly for the essay question) will be dealt
with accordingly.

Multiple choice - give the letter corresponding to the best answer. (2 points each)

1. When may an information be filed in court without a preliminary investigation being first
conducted? (a) Following an inquest, in cases of those lawfully arrested without a warrant. (b)
When the accused, while under custodial investigation, informs the arresting officers that he is
waiving his right to preliminary investigation. (c) When the accused fails to challenge the
validity of the warrantless arrest at his arraignment. (d) When the arresting officers take the
suspect before the judge who issues a detention order against him.

2. Adik Ako was convicted for estafa thru falsification of public document filed by one of two
offended parties. Can the other offended party charge him again with the same crime? (a) Yes,
since the wrong done the second offended party is a separate crime. (b) No, since the offense
refers to the same series of act, prompted by one criminal intent. (c) Yes, since the second
offended party is entitled to the vindication of the wrong done him as well. (d) No, since the
second offended party is in estoppel, not having joined the first criminal action.

3. Which of the following is a misstatement of a requisite for the issuance of a search warrant?
(a) The warrant specifically describes the place to be searched and the things to be seized. (b)
Presence of probable cause. (c) The warrant issues in connection with one specific offense. (d)
Judge determines probable cause upon the affidavits of the complainant and his witnesses.

4. Upon review, the Secretary of Justice ordered the public prosecutor to file a motion to
withdraw the information for estafa against Wag Tularan for lack of probable cause. The public
prosecutor complied. Is the trial court bound to grant the withdrawal? (a) Yes, since the
prosecution of an action is a prerogative of the public prosecutor. (b) No, since the complainant
has already acquired a vested right in the information. (c) No, since the court has the power after
the case is filed to itself determine probable cause. (d) Yes, since the decision of the Secretary of
Justice in criminal matters is binding on courts.

5. An accused's custodial rights, e.g., right to counsel and right to remain silent, are available: (a)
at preliminary investigation. (b) at police line-up for identification purposes. (c) at ultra-violet
examination to determine presence of ultra violet powder on accused's hands. (d) at one-on-one
confrontation with eyewitness.

Essay - answer the question directly and concisely. State the basis for your answer. (10 points)

1. Isko Tibak, a college student, was sleeping at his cousin's house because his relatives were
visiting and there was no room at his own house. Around midnight, there was a knock on the
door. When Isko opened the door, a group of policemen carrying firearms "invited" Isko and his
cousin to go to the police station in order to "help" the police in a drug investigation. Isko asked
if he could call his older brother, a lawyer, but the policemen searched the house and took their
cellphones away, telling them that the phones were now evidence and therefore they were not
allowed to touch them. Isko and his cousin were pushed into an unmarked van and taken to the
police station, where they were separated and "interviewed" individually. The policemen told
Isko that his cousin was a drug dealer, and that he should testify against him otherwise he will
also be charged with a crime. Isko said that he did not know anything about his cousin's dealings,
after which the policemen grew angry. Isko was then shot several times in the back when,
according to the police, he tried to grab a policeman's gun and attack the interviewing officers.
Was the correct procedure followed? What rules, if any, were violated?