Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Motion To Suppress Evidence - Jonathan Balcita
Motion To Suppress Evidence - Jonathan Balcita
1.1 Last May 24, 2018 at around 9:00 p.m., they were manning a
checkpoint along Pennsylvania Avenue within the
geographical jurisdiction of Brgy. Madayegdeg, San Fernando
City, La Union;
1.4 The pursuit went a long way but ended at the capture and
ultimately the arrest of the accused at Brgy. Canaoay West of
this city;
1.5 After declaring the arrest of the accused, police mobile arrived
and the arrested suspected was issued a Traffic Violation Ticket
as he was arrested for said violation. Copy of the Traffic
Violation Ticket issued to the accused was attached to the
affidavits of the police officers;
1.7 Consequently, the instant case was filed against the accused;
1
G. R. No. 197788, February 29, 2012.
3. It also noted that the Philippine National Police has also a similar
procedure for flagging down vehicles during the conduct of
checkpoints as encapsulated in its Operations Manual, to wit:
xxx
4. The accused in the above-captioned case does not dispute that he was
apprehended by police officers MATEO, BAYASBAS and
GERMONO last May 24, 2018 for traffic violation only as evidence
by the sworn statements of these concerned police officers and the
Traffic Violation Ticket they issued against the accused;
6. In the above-cited case of Luz, when the arrest of the accused was
declared to be illegal, the Supreme Court also took the opportunity to
affirm as inadmissible in evidence all seized items resulting from the
arrest of the accused for being a fruit of a poisonous tree. This principle
has its origin from no less than the Philippine Constitution, to wit:
2
Id.
3
Philippine Constitution, Art. III, Sec. 3 (b).
Otherwise known as the exclusionary rule or the fruit of the
poisonous tree doctrine, this rule provides evidence obtained
through unlawful seizures should be excluded as evidence because it
is “the only practical means of enforcing the constitutional injunction
against unreasonable searches and seizures.”4 It ensures that the
fundamental rights to one’s person, houses, papers, and effects are
not lightly infringed upon and are upheld. 5 The Supreme Court
painstakingly resolved the invalidity of the search conducted against
the accused in the Luz case from all possible angles;
9. While he may have failed to object to the illegality of his arrest at the
earliest opportunity, a waiver of an illegal warrantless arrest does
not, however, mean a waiver of the inadmissibility of evidence seized
during the illegal warrantless arrest;6 and
10.This motion is not intended to delay the proceedings but solely for
the above-mentioned purposes.
PRAYER
Other just and equitable reliefs under the premises are likewise
prayed for.
4
126 Phil. 738 (1967) [Per C.J. Concepcion, En Banc].
5
People vs. Cogaed, G.R. No. 200334, July 30, 2014.
6
Supra at 2.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this May 29, 2018 at San Fernando
City, La Union, Philippines.
JEFFREY M. AGTARAP
Public Attorney III/ OIC-SFC LU DO
Roll No. 55673; May 2, 2008; Manila
IBP No. 01819; January 5, 2018; IBP Baguio-Benguet Chapter
MCLE Compliance No. V-0005062; December 22, 2014
NOTICE OF HEARING
GILBERT R. HUFANA
Copy furnished: