QUIZ No. 4 | Constitutional Law 2

Share!

This quiz consists of random questions on the Bill of Rights 9Double Jeopardy, Ex Post Facto Law, and Human Rights).
Read and understand each question. This is a multiple choice type quiz. Choose the best answer. Register your answer by sliding the button corresponding to your chosen answer.
This quiz is good for thirty (30) minutes. Upon clicking on the “START NOW” button, the timer shall start. The timer is visible on the lower right portion of your screen. Once time is up, your answers will be automatically submitted.
If you you are done with the quiz ahead of the timer, just click the “Finish” button. You may review your answers before clicking the “Finish” button.
Once done, the results will show. You need a score of at least 75% to pass the quiz.
Be honest. Good luck.

START NOW

Results

START NOW

#1. In March 2026, Mike was involved in a car crash. While crossing the street, he was hit by the pick-up truck being driven by Denton. Denton hit other pedestrians, namely, Abegail, Bree, and Reyzel. Abegail, Bree and Reyzel filed a reckless imprudence case resulting in serious physical injuries against Denton. Mike chose not to file any case because Denton promised that he will pay him by the end of March 2026. On 6 April 2026, Denton was arraigned. He pleaded guilty.

Meanwhile, Mike was not paid by Denton as promised. On 7 April 2026, Mike filed a reckless imprudence resulting in serious physical injuries case against Denton. Which of the following is the best defense for Denton? (10%)

Denton may invoke double jeopardy on the ground that he cannot be charged for the same offense arising from the same facts twice.

Mike has no cause of action because his agreement with Denton is for an obligation to pay. Due process will be violated if instead of filing a civil case, Mike elects to file a criminal case.

Denton may invoke estoppel against Mike. Mike's inaction resulted in the loss of his right to prosecute Denton. It will be a violation of due process to allow Mike to prosecute Denton after he agreed not to file a case.

Denton may invoke double jeopardy on the ground that he cannot be charged for the same offense involving the same parties twice.

#2. Which of the following situations will not result in double jeopardy setting in? (10%)

An accused entering a plea of guilty.

An accused pleading guilty to a lesser offense.

An accused waiving his or her right to be heard after the prosecution rested its case.

A case being dismissed after a motion by an accused for judicial determination of probable cause has been granted.

#3. In June 2025, Randy was convicted of Murder by the La Union Regional Trial Court. In July 2025, he appealed his conviction. In March 2026, Randy was acquitted by the Court of Appeals. In April 2026, the Office of the Solicitor General filed a petition for review on certiorari on the ground that the Court of Appeals justices committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction. The OSG argued that the justices are actually close friends with Randy and should have inhibited themselves from deciding the appeal. Which of the following is best applicable in this case? (10%)

The petition will not prosper as mere allegation of grave abuse of discretion will not reverse an acquittal.

The petition will not prosper because a petition for review on certiorari is the wrong remedy to question an acquittal.

The petition will prosper because what transpired before the Court of Appeals was a sham trial.

The petition will prosper. Justices should be beyond reproach. Any accusation of bias against a judge should be enough ground for inhibition in order to maintain the integrity of the courts. Refusing to inhibit is tantamount to grave abuse of discretion.

#4. Which of the following is an ex post facto law? (10%)

An amending law requiring that before one may be convicted of economic abuse under the Anti-Violence Against Women and their Children Act, an expert witness must first be presented to prove such abuse. The amending law further provides that it is applicable to pending cases.

A law punishing social media posts against religious figures.

An amending law making the penalty two degrees higher if the victim is a child below 8 years old. The law further provides that it is applicable to pending cases.

A law defining theft of a thing which has a value of at least one million pesos is already punishable by reclusion temporal instead of prision mayor.

#5. In January 2025, May-Ann saw her husband Ronald having sexual intercourse with X. Due to severe anger, she mauled X until X died. May-Ann was indicted for homicide under exceptional circumstances. May-Ann was convicted and was sentenced to destierro. In March 2026, a new information was filed against May-Ann for the murder of X. The police discovered evidence that May-Ann had been planning all along to murder X and it was just coincidental that she caught her husband having sexual intercourse with X. Which of the following is best applicable in this situation. (10%)

Double jeopardy has set in because she was already arraigned, tried, and convicted in the first case of homicide under exceptional circumstances.

Double jeopardy has not set in since the first jeopardy is invalid.

Double jeopardy has set in because the discovery by the police of new evidence is not a sufficient intervening event to allow further prosecution.

Double jeopardy has not set in because discovery of new evidence is not a ground for a re-trial in criminal cases.

#6. In 2020, Z disappeared. He was last seen being abducted by a male individual. That male individual was later identified as Jeffrey. Z’s body was never found. Jeffrey was later indicted for kidnapping. In 2022, Jeffrey was convicted of kidnapping. Jeffrey was committed to the national penitentiary. While serving his sentence, Z’s body was discovered in January 2026. Jeffrey’s case was re-opened and an amended information for Kidnapping with Murder was filed against Jeffrey. Which of the following is best applicable in this case. (10%)

Jeffrey should be prosecuted further for kidnapping with murder and if found innocent shall be immediately released.

Jeffrey should no longer be prosecuted for kidnapping with murder but may be prosecuted for murder only.

Jeffrey should be prosecuted further for kidnapping with murder and if found guilty, the sentence he already served shall be credited to the new sentence.

Jeffrey should no longer be prosecuted for kidnapping with murder by reason of the rule against double jeopardy.

#7. In January 2024, Ronald was indicted for estafa upon the complaint of Draizen. Ronald was arraigned at the La Union RTC. He pleaded not guilty. After pre-trial, Pros. Lea Ann manifested that she cannot present Draizen yet because he is confined at the La union Provincial Hospital. Pros. Lea Ann then moved for the provisional dismissal of the case. Ronald gave his consent. The case was provisionally dismissed in February 2024. In April 2026, Pros. Lea Ann moved for the revival of the case since Draizen is already fully recovered. Which of the following is best applicable in this case. (10%)

Ronald may invoke double jeopardy.

Ronald may not invoke double jeopardy but may invoke violation to his right to speedy trial.

Ronald may invoke double jeopardy but the civil aspect of the case may still continue in the same proceeding.

Ronald may not invoke double jeopardy because he consented to the provisional dismissal.

#8. In 2020, Princes’ husband disappeared and the primary suspect in his disappearance was Princes. Despite no dead body being found, Princes was indicted, tried, and convicted for the death of her husband. In 2026, Princes was released from prison upon pardon by the President. Upon coming home, she saw her husband inside their house. Her husband is alive all along. Enraged, Princes took a knife and killed her husband. Which of the following is true? (10%)

Princes will be prosecuted for the 2026 death of her husband as it is against the condition of her pardon.

Princes will be prosecuted for the 2026 death of her husband as her criminal intent must still be punished.

Princes will no longer be prosecuted for the 2026 death of her husband.

Princes will no longer be prosecuted for the 2026 death of her husband because the pardon worked retroactively and prospectively.

#9. If the first trial was dismissed by the following instances: ___________________________, a re-trial will not result in double jeopardy. (10%)

(a) mistrial, and (b) sham trial

(a) grave abuse of discretion resulting in lack of jurisdiction, and (b) mistrial

(a) insufficiency of evidence, and (b) speedy trial

(a) invocation of the right to speedy trial, and (b) Invocation of the right to speedy disposition of cases

#10. In March 2026, R.A. No. 555555 was enacted which expanded the jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Court. Under the law, all violations of the Anti-Bouncing Checks Law are now under the jurisdiction of the RTC. The law further provides that it shall apply to cases involving checks that were issued prior to March 2026 but not yet filed in court. All pending cases shall maintain their status quo.

Jay-R who issued a check that bounced in January 2026 was indicted in April 2026. Jay-R is now questioning the validity of R.A. No. 555555 on the ground that it is an ex-post facto law. Rule on the argument of Jay-R. (10%)

Jay-R is not correct. RA 555555 does not prejudice him as it even expedites the proceedings by bypassing the municipal trial court.

Jay-R is correct. RA 555555 will prejudice Jay-R as it will deprive him of the opportunity to appeal to the regional trial court in case of conviction in the municipal trial court. It lessened his opportunities for an appeal in case of adverse decisions.

Jay-R is not correct. RA 555555 was a mere procedural law which expanded the jurisdiction of regional trial courts.

Jay-R is correct. RA 555555 prejudiced him as it made his case of BP 22 graver than when it was committed. It is graver because BP 22 cases used to be cognizable by municipal trial courts but are now under regional trial courts.

Finish