2013 (Remedial Law) Bar Exam Questions: Essay Question 8

[Answer/discuss the question below. Or jump to Remedial Law Essay Questions: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 79 and 10; Remedial Law Multiple Choice Questions: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19 and 20; See also Remedial Law Instructions and 2013 Bar Exam: Information, Discussions, Tips, Questions and Results]


On his way to the PNP Academy in Silang, Cavite on board a public transport bus as a passenger, Police Inspector Masigasig of the Valenzuela Police witnessed an on-going armed robbery while the bus was traversing Makati. His alertness and training enabled him to foil the robbery and to subdue the malefactor. He disarmed the felon and while frisking him,discovered another handgun tucked in his waist. He seized both handguns and the malefactor was later charged with the separate crimes of robbery and illegal possession of firearm.

VIII(A) Where should Police Inspector Masigasig bring the felon for criminal processing? To Silang, Cavite where he is bound; to Makati where the bus actually was when the felonies took place; or back to Valenzuela where he is stationed? Which court has jurisdiction over the criminal cases? (3%)

VIII(B) May the charges of robbery and illegal possession of firearm be filed directly by the investigating prosecutor with the appropriate court without a preliminary investigation? (4%)


    1. Sa akin makati din for criminal processing kasi nga dun nangyari but for jurisdiction of criminal cases, im sure ang sinagot ko is RTC, which RTC? Binase ko sa rules on venue with regards to crimes committed in a vehicle, I forgot lang ngayon yung exact provision, parang place of arrival, where it traversed and point of destination, which in this case is either valenzuela, makati and cavite. Just check the codal kasi di ko matandaan, my wife is using my codal. Di rin ako sure kung tama mga pinagsasabi ko basta yun ang natatandaan ko na naisagot ko. As to letter B same lang sagot ko but specifically i mentioned the phrase ” for those valid warrantless arrest” which requires inquest proceedings only.

      1. Ask ko lang regarding this question B. Where po makita yung basis nyo na di kailangan ng PI sa warrantless arrest at direct na sa inquest proceedings? Thanks po. Good luck!

    1. Freshman, A.M. No. 05-8-26-SC, October 3, 2005 deleted what used to be Sec. 5, Rule 112 which was about the resolution of an investigating judge and its review. The former Sec. 6 about “when warrants of arrests may issue” is now the new Sec. 5. The rest of the subsequent article numbers were adjusted accordingly. Thus, what used to be Sec. 7 is not Sec. 6 of Rule 112. 🙂

  1. Di ko na matandaan freshman, basta tignan mo na lng ano section yung may heading about lawful warrantless in the said rules, ano ba edition codal mo? Di ko na kasi matandaan exactly yung number ng provision kasi several months na nagdaan since bar exam.

    1. Anon is right. Under the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure (effective December 1, 2000, A.M. No. 00-5-03-SC), it’s Sec. 6, Rule 112 which is for scenarios where the accused is lawfully arrested without warrant. It states, among others, that “[w]hen a person is lawfully arrested without a warrant involving an offense which requires a preliminary investigation, the complaint or information may be filed by a prosecutor without need of such investigation provided an inquest has been conducted in accordance with existing Rules. xxx” (Katabi ko lang kasi codal ko 😀 )

      1. Tnx greenapple, freshman if your using a 2005 below or 2008 below (im not sure alin) na editition ng codal wag mo na gamitin yan kasi hindi na yan updated, but do not throw your old one because accdg to dean reano collectors item yan, hehehe

Leave a Reply to greenapple Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *