Thursday, September 13, 2012

MCQ

1.Using the description of the supplier of shabu given by persons who had
been arrested earlier for selling it, the police conducted a surveillance of the area
indicated. When they saw a man who fitted the description walking from the
apartment to his car, they approached and frisked him and he did not object. The
search yielded an unlicensed gun tucked on his waist and shabu in his car. Is
the search valid?
A. No, the man did not manifest any suspicious behavior that would give the
police sufficient reason to search him.
B. Yes, the police acted on reliable information which proved correct when they
searched the man and his car.
C. Yes, the man should be deemed to have waived his right to challenge the
search when he failed to object to the frisking.
D. No, reliable information alone, absent any proof beyond reasonable doubt that
the man was actually committing an offense, will not validate the search.


2. . Executive Secretary Chua issued an order prohibiting the holding of rallies
along Mendiola because it hampers the traffic flow to Malacanang. A group of
militants questioned the order for being unconstitutional and filed a case against
Secretary Chua to restrain him from enforcing the order. Secretary Chua raised
state immunity from suit claiming that the state cannot be sued without its
consent. Is the claim correct?
A. No, public officers may be sued to restrain him from enforcing an act claimed
to be unconstitutional.
B. Yes, the order was not a proprietary act of the government.
C. No, only the president may raise the defense of immunity from suit.
D. Yes, Secretary Chua cannot be sued for acts done in pursuance to his public
office.

3. The Constitution prohibits cruel and inhuman punishments which involve
A. torture or lingering suffering.
B. primitive and gross penalties.
C. unusual penal methods.
D. degrading and queer penalties.

4. . An information for murder was filed against X. After examining the case
records forwarded to him by the prosecution, the trial judge granted bail to X
based on the prosecution's manifestation that it was not objecting to the grant of
bail. Is the trial judge correct?
A. Yes, the trial judge may evaluate the strength or weakness of the evidence
based on the case records forwarded to him.
B. No, the trial judge should have held a hearing to ascertain the quality of the
evidence of guilt that the prosecution had against X.
C. No, the trial judge should have conducted a hearing to ascertain first whether
or not X was validly arrested.
D. Yes, the trial judge may reasonably rely on the prosecution's manifestation
that he had no objection to the grant of bail.


5. Involuntary servitude may be required as
A. part of rehabilitation of one duly charged with a crime.
B. substitute penalty for one who has been duly tried for a crime.
C. punishment for a crime where one has been duly convicted.
D. condition precedent to one's valid arraignment.


6. A child born in the United States to a Filipino mother and an American father
is
A. a Filipino citizen by election.
B. a repatriated Filipino citizen.
C. a dual citizen.
D. a natural born Filipino citizen.

7. . Accused X pleaded not guilty to the charge of homicide against him. Since
he was admitted to bail, they sent him notices to attend the hearings of his case.
But he did not show up, despite notice, in four successive hearings without
offering any justification. The prosecution moved to present evidence in absentia
but the court denied the motion on the ground that the accused has a right to be
present at his trial. Is the court correct?
A. No, the court is mandated to hold trial in absentia when the accused had been
arraigned, had notice, and his absence was unjustified.
B. Yes, it remains discretionary on the court whether to conduct trial in absentia
even if the accused had been arraigned and had notice and did not justify his
absence.
C. Yes, it is within the court's discretion to determine how many postponements it
will grant the accused before trying him in absentia.
D. No, the court may reject trial in absentia only on grounds of fraud, accident,
mistake, or excusable negligence

8. When the Supreme Court nullified the decisions of the military tribunal for
lack of jurisdiction, it excluded from their coverage decisions of acquittal where
the defendants were deemed to have acquired a vested right. In so doing, the
Supreme Court applied
A. the operative fact doctrine.
B. the rule against double jeopardy.
C. the doctrine of supervening event.
D. the orthodox doctrine.

9. A law authorized the Secretary of Agriculture to require the quarantine of
animals that suffer from dangerous communicable diseases at such place and for
such time he deems necessary to prevent their spread. The Secretary of
Agriculture issued a regulation, imposing a penalty of imprisonment for 10 days
on persons transporting quarantined animals without his permission. The
regulation is
A. a valid exercise of the power of subordinate legislation.
B. invalid for being ultra vires.
C. a valid exercise of police power.
D. invalid for being discriminatory.

10. . An informer told the police that a Toyota Car with plate ABC 134 would deliver
an unspecified quantity of ecstacy in Forbes Park, Makati City. The officers
whom the police sent to watch the Forbes Park gates saw the described car and
flagged it down. When the driver stopped and lowered his window, an officer
saw a gun tucked on the driver's waist. The officer asked the driver to step out
and he did. When an officer looked inside the car, he saw many tablets strewn
on the driver's seat. The driver admitted they were ecstacy. Is the search valid?
A. No, the rule on warrantless search of moving vehicle does not allow
arbitrariness on the part of the police.
B. Yes, the police officers had the duty to verify the truth of the information they
got and pursue it to the end.
C. Yes, the police acted based on reliable information and the fact that an officer
saw the driver carrying a gun.
D. No, police officers do not have unbridled discretion to conduct a warrantless
search of moving vehicles.


11. . In what scenario is an extensive search of moving vehicles without warrant
valid?
A. The police became suspicious on seeing something on the car’s back seat
covered with blanket.
B. The police suspected an unfenced lot covered by rocks and bushes was
planted to marijuana.
C. The police became suspicious when they saw a car believed to be of the
same model used by the killers of a city mayor.
D. The driver sped away in his car when the police flagged him down at a
checkpoint.


12. . Senator Bondoc was charged with murder and detained at the Quezon City
Jail. He invoked, in seeking leave from the court to attend the session of the
Senate, his immunity from arrest as a Senator. How should the court rule on his
motion?
A. Deny the motion unless the Senate issues a resolution certifying to the
urgency of his attendance at its sessions.
B. Grant the motion provided he posts bail since he is not a flight risk.
C. Grant the motion so as not to deprive the people who elected him their right to
be represented in the Senate.
D. Deny the motion since immunity from arrest does not apply to a charge of
murder.

13. . The Metro Manila Development Authority (MMDA) passed a rule authorizing
traffic enforcers to impound illegally parked vehicles, for the first offense, and
confiscate their registration plates for the second. The MMDA issued this rule to
implement a law that authorized it to suspend the licenses of drivers who violate
traffic rules. Is the MMDA rule valid?
A. No, since the MMDA does not have rule-making power.
B. Yes, it is a valid exercise of the power of subordinate legislation.
C. Yes, it is an implicit consequence of the law upon which it acted.
D. No, the rule goes beyond the sphere of the law.

14. The right of the State to prosecute crimes by available evidence must yield to
the right of
A. the accused against self-incrimination.
B. another State to extradite a fugitive from justice.
C. the State to deport undesirable aliens.
D. the complainant to drop the case against the accused.

15. After X, a rape suspect, was apprised of his right to silence and to counsel,
he told the investigators that he was waiving his right to have his own counsel or
to be provided one. He made his waiver in the presence of a retired Judge who
was assigned to assist and explain to him the consequences of such waiver. Is
the waiver valid?
A. No, the waiver was not reduced in writing.
B. Yes, the mere fact that the lawyer was a retired judge does not cast doubt on
his competence and independence.
C. Yes, the waiver was made voluntarily, expressly, and with assistance of
counsel.
D. No, a retired Judge is not a competent and independent counsel

16. There is double jeopardy when the dismissal of the first case is
A. made at the instance of the accused invoking his right to fair trial.
B. made upon motion of the accused without objection from the prosecution.
C. made provisionally without objection from the accused.
D. based on the objection of the accused to the prosecution's motion to postpone
trial.

17. The President forged an executive agreement with Vietnam for a year supply
of animal feeds to the Philippines not to exceed 40,000 tons. The Association of
Animal Feed Sellers of the Philippines questioned the executive agreement for
being contrary to R.A. 462 which prohibits the importation of animal feeds from
Asian countries. Is the challenge correct?
A. Yes, the executive agreement is contrary to our existing domestic law.
B. No, the President is the sole organ of the government in external relations and
all his actions as such form part of the law of the land.
C. No, international agreements are sui generis which must stand independently
of our domestic laws.
D. Yes, the executive agreement is actually a treaty which does not take effect
without ratification by the Senate.

18. One advantage of a written Constitution is its
A. reliability.
B. permanence.
C. flexibility.
D. expediency.

19. The privacy of communication and correspondence shall be inviolable except
upon lawful order of the court or when
A. public safety or public health requires otherwise as prescribed by law.
B. dictated by the need to maintain public peace and order.
C. public safety or order requires otherwise as prescribed by law.
D. public safety or order requires otherwise as determined by the President.

20. . Althea, a Filipino citizen, bought a lot in the Philippines in 1975. Her
predecessors-in-interest have been in open, continuous, exclusive and notorious
possession of the lot since 1940, in the concept of owner. In 1988, Althea
became a naturalized Australian citizen. Is she qualified to apply for registration
of the lot in her name?
A. Yes, provided she acquires back her Filipino citizenship.
B. No, except when it can be proved that Australia has a counterpart domestic
law that also favors former Filipino citizens residing there.
C. Yes, the lot is already private in character and as a former natural-born
Filipino, she can buy the lot and apply for its registration in her name.
D. No, foreigners are not allowed to own lands in the Philippines.

21. . Filipino citizenship may be acquired through judicial naturalization only by an
alien
A. born, raised, and educated in the Philippines who has all the qualifications and
none of the disqualifications to become a Filipino citizen.
B. who has all the qualifications and none of the disqualifications to become a
Filipino citizen.
C. born and raised in the Philippines who has all the qualifications and none of
the disqualifications to become a Filipino citizen.
D. whose mother or father is a naturalized Filipino and who himself is qualified to
be naturalized.

22. "[At] about 9:15 p.m. of June 28, 1989, Sgt. Victorino Noceja and Pat. Alex de Castro, while on a routine patrol in Barangay Sampalucan, Pagsanjan, Laguna, spotted a passenger jeep unusually covered with "kakawati" leaves.
Suspecting that the jeep was loaded with smuggled goods, the two police officers flagged down the vehicle. The jeep was driven by appellant. When asked what was loaded on the jeep, he did not answer; he appeared pale and nervous.With appellant's consent, the police officers checked the cargo and they discovered bundles of 3.08 mm aluminum/galvanized conductor wires exclusively owned by National Power Corporation (NPC). The conductor wires weighed 700 kilos and valued at P55, 244.45. Noceja asked appellant where the wires came from and appellant answered that they came from Cavinti, a town approximately 8 kilometers away from Sampalucan. Thereafter, appellant and the vehicle with the high-voltage wires were brought to the Pagsanjan Police Station. Danilo Cabale took pictures of the appellant and the jeep loaded with the wires which were turned over to the Police Station Commander of Pagsanjan, Laguna. Appellant was incarcerated for 7 days in the Municipal jail.
DECIDE: Whether or not the constitutional right of petitioner was violated when the police officers searched his vehicle and seized the wires found therein without a search warrant?
23. WHICH OF THE FOLLOWING IS not an element of Double jeopardy ? (A) the accused individuals are charged under a complaint or an information sufficient in form and substance to sustain their conviction; (B) the court has jurisdiction; (C) the accused have been arraigned and have pleaded; and (D) they are convicted or acquitted, or the case is dismissed with their express consent
24. At about 4:40 in the afternoon of July 27, 2000, PO3 George Garcia (PO3 Garcia) and PO3 Romeo Sotomayor, Jr. (PO3 Sotomayor), together with Michael Fermin and Joseph Apologista, all members of the Mayor's Action Command (MAC) of Mandaluyong City, were on routine patrol along M. Cruz St., Barangay Mauway, when they chanced upon two individuals chanting and in the act of exchanging something. The police officers introduced themselves and then inquired from petitioner what he was holding. Petitioner took out from his possession three strips of aluminum foil which PO3 Garcia confiscated. PO3 Sotomayor also found on petitioner a plastic sachet which contained white crystalline substance which looked like tawas. Suspecting that the substance was "shabu", he confiscated the plastic sachet. Petitioner and his companion, who was later identified as Clarito Yanson (Clarito), were brought to the MAC station at the Criminal Investigation Division (CID) for investigation. After laboratory examination, the contents of the plastic sachet weighing 0.03 gram were found positive for Methamphetamine Hydrochloride or shabu, a regulated drug. The test on the three strips of aluminum foil also yielded positive for traces of shabu.
On the basis thereof, petitioner was correspondingly charged with illegal possession of dangerous drugs. Clarito, on the other hand, was further investigated by the City Prosecutor's Office.
Petitioner denied the charge against him. He claimed that he was merely standing in front of a store waiting for the change of his P500.00 bill when he was suddenly accosted by the MAC team.
Petitioner challenges the legality of his warrantless arrest by asserting that at the time he was apprehended, he was not committing or attempting to commit an offense. Petitioner argues that since his arrest was illegal, the eventual search on his person was also unlawful. Thus, the illicit items confiscated from him are inadmissible in evidence for being violative of his constitutional right against unreasonable searches and seizure.
Decide on the allegations of petitioner.
25.Which of the following is NOT correct?
(A) The general rule is that a search and seizure must be carried out through or with a judicial warrant; otherwise such search and seizure becomes "unreasonable" within the meaning of the above quoted constitutional provision. The evidence secured thereby -- i.e., the "fruits" of the search and seizure -- will be inadmissible in evidence "for any purpose in any proceeding."
(B)The requirement that a judicial warrant must be obtained prior to the carrying out of a search and seizure is, however, not absolute.
(C)There are certain exceptions recognized in our law, one of which relates to the search of moving vehicles.
(D)Peace officers may lawfully conduct searches of moving vehicles -- automobiles, trucks, etc. -- ­without need of a warrant, it not being practicable to secure a judicial warrant before searching a vehicle, since such vehicle can be quickly moved out of the locality or jurisdiction in which the warrant may be sought and should not be limited even to routine checks.

No comments: