JurisAtlas

HomeBar Review2018Remedial LawQuestion XVI

Question XVI

2018 Bar · Remedial Law · 2 sub-questions

XVI. Danjo, a stay-in gardener at the Dy family home in Quezon City, applied for overseas employment in Riyadh as a flower arranger. After he left for abroad, Dino Dy, head of the family, discovered that all his wristwatches were missing. Dino followed Danjo's lnstagram account and in one instance saw Danjo wearing his Rolex watch. He filed a complaint for qualified theft against Danjo with the Office of the Prosecutor (OP), Quezon City. The subpoena with the affidavit-complaint was served on Denden, Danjo's wife, at their house. No counter-affidavit was filed by Danjo who continued to work in Riyadh. After conducting a preliminary investigation, the OP found probable cause against Danjo and subsequently filed the information for qualified theft before the RTC of Quezon City. The court likewise found probable cause and issued in 2016 a warrant for Danjo's arrest. Danjo was repatriated to the Philippines in 2018. While Danjo was lurking outside the Dys' house, which was only about 100 meters away from the police station, SPO1 Dody recognized Danjo. Realizing that the police station had a copy of Danjo's warrant of arrest, SPO1 Dody immediately pursued and arrested Danjo.
(a)(a) Was the warrant of arrest issued against Danjo who was not in the Philippines valid? (2.5%)
(b)(b) Can the warrant of arrest be served on Danjo upon his return? (2.5%)

Model answer · ALAC

Answer — Legal basis — Application — Conclusion.

AI-drafted in ALAC form and AI-verified against landmark authorities — refined with every round of verification.

Sign in free to read Question I of every Remedial Law year — subscribe to unlock all model answers & authorities.

Sign in or register — it's freeHave an access code? Redeem it →