SUGGESTED

ANSWERS TO
2014 REMEDIAL
LAW BAR
EXAM I.I.
Ludong,
Balatong, and
Labong were
charged with
murder. After
trial, thecourt
announced that
the case was
considered
submitted for
decision.Subseque
ntly, the Clerk of
Court issued the
notices of
promulgation
of judgment whic
h were duly receiv
ed. On promulgati
on day, Ludong a
nd hislawyer
appeared. The
lawyers of
Balatong and
Labong appeared
but withouttheir
clients and failed
to satisfactorily
explain their
absence when
queried bythe
court. Thus, the
judge ordered the
Clerk of Court to
proceed with
thereading of the
judgment
convicting all the
accused. With
respect to
Balatongand
Labong, the judge
ordered that the
judgment be
entered in the
criminaldocket
and copies be
furnished their
lawyers. The
lawyers of
Ludong,
Balatong,and
Labong filed
within the
reglementary
period a Joint
Motion
forReconsideratio
n. The court
favorably granted
the motion of
Ludongdowngradi
ng his conviction
from murder to
homicide but
denied the motion
asregards
Balatong and
Labong. (4%) (A)
Was the court
correct in
takingcognizance
of the Joint
Motion for
Reconsideration?
(B) Can Balatong
andLabong appeal
their conviction in
case Ludong
accepts his
conviction
forhomicide?
ANSWERS:
(A)No, the court
was not correct in
taking cognizance
of the Joint
Motionfor
Reconsideration
insofar as
Balatong and
Labong were
concerned.Under
Section 6 Rule
120, if the
judgment was for
conviction and the
failure ofthe
accused to appear
was without
justifiable cause,
he shall lose the
remediesavailable
under the Rules
of Court and the
court shall order
his arrest. Theacc
used may regain
the remedies only
if he surrenders
and files a motion
forleave to avail
of the
remedies under
the Rules of
Court.Here the
failure of
Balatong and
Labong to appear
was without
justifiablecause as
even their lawyers
were not aware of
the reason for
their
absence.Hence
they lost
their remedies
under the
Rules. Since
Balatong and
Labongdid not
surrender and file
a motion for leave
to avail of
remedies, it
wasincorrect for
the trial court to
take cognizance
of the joint
motion
forreconsideration
insofar
as Balatong and
Labong were
concerned. The tri
alcourt should
instead have
ordered their
arrest. (People v.
De Grano, 5
June2009, Peralta,
J.).
On the other
hand, it was
correct for the
trial court to take
cognizance of
the joint motion
for reconsideratio
n insofar as
Ludong
was concerned
since he andhis
lawyer were
present during the
promulgation.
(B)No, Balatong
and Labong
cannot appeal
their conviction in
caseLudong
accepts his
conviction for
homicide.Since
Balatong and
Labong failed to
appear during the
promulgation
ofthe conviction
without justifiable
cause, they lost
the remedies
under the Rulesof
Court including
the remedy of an
appeal.II.McJolly
is a trouble-maker
of sorts, always
getting into
brushes with the
law.In one
incident, he drove
his Humvee
recklessly, hitting
a pedicab which
sentits driver and
passengers in
different
directions. The
pedicab driver
died, whiletwo (2)
of the passengers
suffered slight
physical injuries.
Two (2)
Informationswere
then filed against
McJolly. One, for
Reckless
Imprudence
Resulting
inHomicide and
Damage to
Property, and two,
for Reckless
Imprudence
Resultingin Slight
Physical Injuries.
The latter case
was scheduled for
arraignmentearlier
, on which
occasion McJolly
immediately
pleaded guilty. He
was metedout the
penalty of public
censure. A month
later, the case for
recklessimpruden
ce resulting in
homicide was also
set for
arraignment.
Instead
ofpleading,
McJollyinterpose
d the defense of
double jeopardy.
Resolve.
(4%)ANSWER: T
he defense of dou
ble jeopardy is me
ritorious and the s
econdinformation
for reckless
imprudence
resulting in
homicide should
be quashedon the
ground of double
jeopardy. The Sup
reme Court has he
ld that reckless im
prudence is a sing
lecrime and that
its consequences
on persons and
property are
material only
todetermine the
penalty.