Republic of the Philippines

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF _____

____________________
Branch ___

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

Plaintiff, Crim. Case No. ________

For:
- Versus - Violation of Section 5,
Article II of R.A.
9165
_____________________________
Accused.
X - - - - - - - - - - - - - /
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
Plaintiff, Crim. Case No. _________

For:
- Versus - Violation of Section 11,
Article II of R.A.
9165
_____________________________
Accused.
X - - - - - - - - - - - - - /

MOTION TO QUASH INFORMATION

COMES NOW, the ACCUSED, through the undersigned
counsel to this Honorable Court, most respectfully
moves to Quash the above Informations on the ground
that:

THIS HONORABLE COURT HAS NO JURISDICTION OVER THE

PERSON OF THE ACCUSED.

ARGUMENTS/DISCUSSION

1.Sec. 3 (c), Rule 117 of the Rules of Court

explicitly provides:

“Sec. 3. Grounds. - The accused may move to

Quash the complaint or information on any of the
following grounds:
x x x
 (c) That the court trying the case has no
jurisdiction over the person of the accused;

x x x

2.That in the case of MAXIMO VALDEPENAS V. PEOPLE

(G.R. No. L-20687, April 30, 1966), the Supreme
Court held:

“Jurisdiction over the person of an accused is

acquired upon either his apprehension, with or
without warrant, or his submission to the jurisdiction
of the court.”

3.That Sec. 5 of Rule 113 of the Rules of Court

clearly provides when arrest without a warrant is
lawful:

“Sec. 5. Arrest without warrant; when lawful. -

A peace officer or a private person may,
without a warrant, arrest a person:
(a) When, in his person, the person to be
arrested has committed, is committing, or
is attempting to commit an offense;
(b) When an offense has just been committed
and he has probable cause to believe based
on personal knowledge of facts or
circumstances that the person to be
arrested has committed it; and
(c) Xxx

In cases falling under paragraphs (a) and

(b)above, the person arrested without
a warrant shall be forthwith delivered
to the nearest police station or jail and
shall be proceeded against in
accordance with Section 7 of Rule 112
(5a).

4.That as the above stated, jurisdiction over the

person of herein Accused was never acquired by
this Honorable Court in view of the fact that the
warrantless arrest of herein Accused was ILLEGAL
since it was made in violation of his
constitutionally guaranteed right against
unreasonable searches and seizures as provided
under Section 2, Article III of the 1987
Philippine Constitution, and that said arrest was
 not among the instances for valid warrantless
arrest, as shown by the following:

5.That at the outset, it is worth stressing that no

buy-bust operation whatsoever was conducted
against herein Accused at the time and date
alleged in the information since herein Accused
was just illegally arrested by the members of the
__________________;

6.That the allegation of the _______ operatives

that accused was a ________ was bereft of merit
since he already __________ and also ceased as
working scholar of the institution;

7. That the allegation of the _______ operatives

that their confidential informant was able to
purchase shabu from accused inside the school
campus was bereft of merit since he was no longer
enrolled at ________ and as such the _____ should
have presented or submitted as part of their
evidence proof that the same was positive for
shabu as a result of the test-buy operation;

8. That the allegation of the _______ operatives

that _________ who acted as poseur buyer
instructed their confidential informant to call
the accused that they will be purchasing
Php25,000.00 worth of shabu was bereft of merit,
in fact if the same was true, a cellular phone
should have been presented as part of the
evidence that accused was using the same as the
means of communication between him and the
confidential informant;

9.That the inventory does not include a cellular

phone as evidence that the accused used his
cellular phone in communicating with the
confidential informant;

10. That it should be noted that in the case of

“PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES versus ROMY LIM y
MIRANDA, G.R. No. 231989” - the presence of the
three witnesses at the time of seizure and
confiscation of the drugs must be secured and
complied with at the time of the warrantless
 arrest; such that they are required to be at or
near the intended place of the arrest so that
they can be ready to witness the inventory and
photographing of the seized and confiscated drugs
immediately after seizure and confiscation” Thus,
in the instant case this requirement was not
complied of in fact the operation was at 6:00
o’clock in the evening as reflected in the
inventory sheet and the witnesses indicated the
time of 7:25pm which proves that at that time
they were called only to witness the inventory;

11. That also in the case of “PEOPLE OF THE

PHILIPPINES versus ROMY LIM y MIRANDA, G.R. No.
231989”- By the same token, however, this also
means that the required witnesses should already
be physically present at the time of apprehension
- a requirement that can easily be complied with
by the buy-bust team considering that the buy-
bust operation is, by its nature, a planned
activity. Simply put, the apprehending team has
enough time and opportunity to bring with them
said witnesses, Thus, in the case at hand the
same was not complied with and therefore a ground
for the instant dismissal;

12. That Accused was never in possession of illegal

drugs since he was just attending to his
__________;

13. That no buy-bust operation was conducted

against herein Accused and that charges against
him are obviously fabricated and trumped-up;

14. That it is worth emphasizing that Section 2 and

Section 3 (2) Article III of the 1987
Constitution explicitly states:

“Section 2. The right of the people to be

secure in their persons, houses, papers, and
effects against unreasonable searches and seizures
of whatever nature and for any purpose shall be
inviolable, and no search warrant or warrant of
arrest shall issue except upon probable cause to be
determined personally by the judge after
examination under oath or affirmation of the
complainant and the witnesses he may produce, and
 particularly describing the place to be
searched and the persons or things to be seized.
Sec. 3 (1)x x x
(2) Any evidence obtained in violation of this or
the preceding section shall be inadmissible for any
purpose in any proceeding.”

9. That also, it is important to point out that the

arrest made upon the person of the Accused was
ILLEGAL for failure of the arresting officers to
inform Accused of his Miranda Rights as enshrined
under Article 3, Section 12 (1) of the 1987
Philippine Constitution, which provides:

“Section 12. (1) Any person under investigation for

the commission of an offense shall have the right
to be informed of his right to remain silent
and to have competent and independent counsel
preferably of his own choice. If the person cannot
afford the services of counsel, he must be
provided with one. These rights cannot be waived
except in writing and in the presence of
counsel.”

10. That all the foregoing clearly and indubitably

show that the constitutional rights of herein
Accused have been violated by the arresting ______
agents and the warrantless arrest of Accused was
obviously ILLEGAL. Hence, this Honorable Court has
no jurisdiction over the person of herein Accused
and consequently, ought to be DISMISSED.

11. That it is also well to emphasize that the

disputable presumption that official duty has been
regularly performed should not hold in favour of
the ________ Members since they have clearly
violated the constitutional rights of herein
Accused. In the case of PEOPLE vs. BENNY GO (G.R.
No. 144639, September 12, 2003) the Supreme Court
held:

“Since no presumption of regularity may be

invoked by an officer to justify an encroachment
of rights secured by the Constitution, x x x a
strict interpretation of the constitutional,
statutory and procedural rules authorizing
search and seizure is required and strict
compliance therewith is demanded”
 PRAYER

WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing, it is

most respectfully prayed of this Honorable Court
that this Motion to Quash filed by herein accused
be GRANTED and the items allegedly seized during
the illegal arrest be declared INADMISSIBLE under
the exclusionary rule in Article III, Sec. 3(2) in
relation to Section 2, Article III of the 1987
Philippine Constitution.

Accused further prays for other reliefs that

are just and equitable under the premises.

City of Tagbilaran, _____________.

REQUEST

THE HONORABLE CLERK OF COURT

Regional Trial Court Branch ____
City of __________

Greetings:

Please Submit the foregoing Motion to Quash for

the Honorable Court’s consideration on ___________
at 2:00 p.m..

NOTICE
OFFICE OF THE CITY PROSECUTOR
Hall of Justice
______________

Greetings:

Please be informed that the the foregoing

Motion to Quash shall be submitted for the
Honorable Court’s consideration on _______________
at 2:00 p.m..

Thank you.

Copy furnished:

Office of the City Prosecutor

Hall of Justice Received by:_____________
Date:____________________