Crim Pro
Crim Pro
Crim Pro
1.
A.
Yes, It is correct. It should be noted that art. 26 of article 114 provides essentially that the warrant does
not prevent the defendant from challenging the validity of his arrest, even less so in the usual attack or
question of the absence of a preliminary investigation so long as he told them before he confessed. As a
result, the court can rule on A and B's claims pending preliminary investigations.
B.
Yes, petitions will prosper, without giving up the right to challenge the invalidity of an arrest, the
illegality of issuing an arrest warrant, or the irregularity or lack of a preliminary investigation.
C.
The purpose of bail is to ensure that the accused appears before the proper court at the scheduled time
and place to answer the charges against him, to honor the presumption of innocence until his guilt is
proven beyond reasonable doubt, and to enable him to prepare without being subject to punishment
prior to conviction.
D.
No, if A and B are military men, they cannot post a bail. Under the law, bail is not been recognized and is
not available in the military. The right of speedy trial is given more emphasis in the military where the
right to bail does not exist. Hence, A and B cannot avail a bail.
2.
A.
1. Effectivity of the bail, that shall be effective upon approval and remain enforce at all stages of
the case, unless sooner cancelled by higher courts.
2. Appearance of the accused, that the latter shall appear before the proper court whenever
required.
3. Effect of non-appearance of the accused at the trial, without justification and despite due notice
shall be deemed a waiver of his right to be present threat.
4. Surrender of the accused, where the bondsman shall surrender the accused to the court for
execution of the final judgement.
B.
Yes, the bail can still be posted. Under the law, a case originally filed with the MTC but brought on
appeal to the RTC, in such case the case the bail remains effective even during the pendency of the
appeal with the RTC until the promulgation of its judgement.
C.
Yes, a bail can be posted before the lower courts be utilized also for temporary liberty while the case is
still on appeal before the CA. It was held in one case that bail bond previously posted before the lower
courts can be utilized during the 15-day period to appeal but not during the entire period of appeal.
D.
No, the accused cannot post a bail before the CA. When a defendant is convicted by the RTC of a crime
punishable by death, life imprisonment, he may not be allowed to be temporarily released during the
time of appeal before the CA with the same a bail.
3.
4.
As defined in The Revised Rules of Criminal Procedures, Arraignment is an indispensable requirement in
any criminal prosecution. It is the stage where an accused, is granted the opportunity to know for the
first time the precise charge that confronts him. It is imperative that he is thus made fully aware of
possible loss of freedom, even of his life, depending on the nature of the crime imputed to him. At the
very least then, he must be fully informed of why the prosecuting arm of the state is mobilized against
him. An arraignment serves that purpose.
5.
A.
If I were the judge, I would ask for a full-blown trial. This is consistent with one of the cases where the
Supreme Court decided that the defendant pleaded guilty but asked for relief, the court admitted
conditional guilt. Therefore, a full-blown trial is required.
B.
If I were the presiding judge, in the event that Mr. Landap denied the charges even though he pleaded
guilty, I would ask the defendant to plead guilty again, or at least request a new plea. is included. him
because such explicit testimony had the effect of quashing his earlier confession. After that, I will
conduct a trial of the case to determine Mr. Landap's guilt or innocence.
C.
No, Mr. Landap is not entitled to mitigating circumstance of plea of guilt in all foregoing pleas of guilt
made by him. It is well settled that a plea of guilty is not mitigating when it was made after the
prosecution had commenced the presentation of its evidence.
D.
Under Rule 116 of the RRCP, plea of not guilty is entered in the following circumstances:
(a) When the accused pleads ‘not guilty’ to the offense charge;
(b) When he refuses to make a plea;
(c) When he makes a conditional plea of guilty, as when it is made provided that a certain penalty be
imposed upon him, it is equivalent to a plea of not guilty and would, therefore, require a full-blown trial
before judgment may be rendered;
(d) When he admits the truth of some or all the allegations of the information, but interposes excuses or
additional facts which, if duly established would exempt or relieve him in whole or in part of criminal
responsibility;
(e) When, after a plea of guilt, he introduces evidence of self-defense or other exculpatory
circumstances; and
(f) When the plea is indefinite, vague or ambiguous.
7.
If a complaint or information is amended, the defendant must be charged based on the amended
information. If the defendant has already been arraigned based on the original information, if the
change is of a formal nature, for example the change made to the information is the inclusion of
another defendant. However, even if the defense lawyer is informed of such flaws, it is a reversible
error if the defendant is charged with the original information rather than the substantially
modified information.
8.
A.
B.
9.
A.
B.
To negotiate or compromise the defendant, you are not allowed to tolerate guilt for a crime lighter than
the actually charged. The rule grants such a plea only if the prosecutor does not have sufficient evidence
to prove guilty of the offense indicted. Indeed, if such an offer is made, the court will carefully
investigate the situation of based on the alleged crime, which may include the fact of the death of the
victim for whom the defendant was liable for criminal charges. is needed. Simple logic and common
sense are suing less crimes of attempted murder. Even if the prosecution has already closed the
proceedings, it is clearly irregular to allow the defendant to withdraw the plea not guilty of murder and
replace it with admission for less reason. It is a legally wrong act of the court. The murder charges and
voluntary admission mitigation status are considered.