MOCK BAR EXAMINATION QUESTIONS IN

CRIMINAL LAW
1. In a foreclosure of real estate mortgage proceeding, the Equity of Redemption over the
foreclosed property:
a. Does not exist.
b. May be exercised at any time after the sale of the foreclosed property.
c. May be exercised only before the confirmation of sale.
2. When a defendant is validly declared in default, the court may render a decision on the

basis of:
a. The complaint only.
b. The evidence which the plaintiff presents only.
c. The complaint or the evidence which the plaintiff presents.
d. The complaint and the evidence which the plaintiff presents.
3. The Regional Trial Court in which a petition for a Writ of Amparo is filed is the one which has

jurisdiction over the:

a.
b.
c.
d.

Place of residence of the respondent or any of the respondents.

Place of residence of the aggrieved party only.
Place of residence of the petitioner who is not aggrieved party.
Place where the threat, act or omission was committed or any of its elements
occurred.

4. While R was walking along a deserted street in Esperanza, Agusan del Sur, a heavily tinted

van stopped behind him and five armed, masked men alighted from the vehicle. The men
grabbed R, threw him inside the van, blindfolded him and tied his hands behind his back.
The van proceeded to Cagayan De Oro City, passing by Agusan del Norte. In Cagayan de
Oro, the group transferred to another van and went up to Malaybalay, Bukidnon. Upon
arriving in Malaybalay, the group met someone who, after confirming Rs identity, gave a
thick wad a peso bills to the groups leader, T. Using a handgun, T shot R five times at the
back, instantly killing him. What crime/s was/were committed and when court/s have
jurisdiction over the case/s?
a. The crime committed was Kidnapping with Murder and the RTCs of Esperanza,
Agusan del Norte, Cagayan de Oro and Bukidnon have concurrent jurisdiction over
the case.
b. The crime committed was Murder and the RTCs of Esperanza, Agusan Del Norte,
Cagayan de Oro and Bukidnon have concurrent jurisdiction over the case.
c. The crime committed was Kidnapping with Murder and the RTC of Esperanza has
exclusive jurisdiction over the case.
d. The crime committed was murder and the RTC of Bukidnon has exclusive original
jurisdiction over the case.
5. N, a barangay tanod, also moonlights as driver of cargo forwarder, transporting goods and

materials to and from the Manila South pier. One night, while driving one of the employers
cargo trucks to the pier, N met a road mishap resulted in the opening of some of the crates
in the trucks cargo hold. Upon inspection, N noticed that crates contained bags of white
powdery substance. Suspecting the substance to be shabu, N immediately called a
kumpadre narcotics agent who took possession of the cargo for laboratory examination. The

cargo was confirmed to be shabu. The shabus shipper, M, was tracked and prosecuted for
illegal possession of shabu. During the trial. M moved to suppress the shabu on the ground
that they were the product of an unreasonable warrantless search, As Judge, would you
exclude the evidence?
a. Yes the search was unreasonable because N, a barangay tanod, is a government
agent thus he should have first secure a warrant.
b. No, the warrantless search was valid under the plain view doctrine. Supported by Ns
reasonable suspicion that the white powdery substance was shabu.
c. Yes, there was no probable cause to conduct a warrantless search, as shown by the
fact N had to call a narcotics agent kumpadre to determine if the spilt cargo was
prohibited substance.
d. No, N search the cargo as a private citizen thus, he can do so even without a
warrant.