REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT

NATIONAL CAPITAL JUDICIAL REGION
, BRANCH

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,

Plaintiff,

-versus- Crim. Case No.

JUAN DELA CRUZ,

PEDRO DELA CRUZ,
MARIO DELA CRUZ
Accused.
x--------------------------------------------x

MOTION TO QUASH AMENDED INFORMATION

Accused-movant JUAN DELA CRUZ, represented by the PUBLIC ATTORNEY’S

OFFICE, to his Honorable Court, most respectfully avers:

1. Accused Juan Dela Cruz stands charged with the crimes of Robbery with Homicide

and Frustrated Homicide under an Amended Information which alleged:

nd
“That on or about the 22 day of August, 2005, in Quezon City,
Philippines, the said accused, conspiring together, confederating with and
mutually helping each other, with intent to gain, by means of violence
against and intimidation of persons, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and
feloniously rob the NILOOBAN PAINT STORE, located at No. 1234 NIA
Road, Brgy. Pinyahan, this City, owned by JUANITO NILOOBAN y DUCUT in
the following manner, to wit: said accused robbed and carried away an
undetermined amount of cash money, and by reason of the robbery or on
occasion of said Robbery, said accused with intent to kill, shot JUANITO
NILOOBAN y DUCUT, WILBERT MURIAGA y SULIT and GARY MURIAGA y
SULIT, several times, thereby inflicting upon them fatal physical injuries which
caused the untimely death of Juanito Nilooban y Ducut and Gary Muriaga y
Sulit, accused performed all the acts of execution that would have produced
the crime of Homicide with regard to Wilbert Muriaga y Sulit as a
consequence, but the crime is not produced by reason of causes independent
of the will of the accused, to the damage and prejudice of the said offended
parties.

CONTRARY TO LAW.”
 2. Based on the above-quoted Information, it appears that the allegations in the

Amended Information is glaringly defective and should be quashed on two (2)

grounds:

a) The aforesaid Amended Information charges the accused of more than

one offense, in violation of Sec. 13, Rule 110 of the 2000 Rules of
1
Criminal Procedure;

b) The Court has no jurisdiction over the person of the accused, the latter
having been arrested without a valid warrant of arrest;

3. A cursory glance of the assailed Amended Information readily shows that the

accused was being charged with two (2) separate offenses under one criminal

Information, Robbery with Homicide and Frustrated Homicide, despite the fact

that the two (2) alleged incidents arose from one occasion. Such improper merger of

two (2) separate offenses is highly prejudicial to the accused unless this Honorable

Court declares the said defective Amended Information as invalid and consequently

dismissed.

4. Moreover, the said defective Amended Information alleged:

“x x x said accused with intent to kill shot JUANITO NILOOBAN y DUCUT,

WILBERT MURIAGA y SULIT and GARY MURIAGA y SULIT, several times,
x x x”

In effect, the accused were charged with several distinct and separate crimes,

because of the phrase “several times”. There is therefore an obvious duplicity of

charges which accused-movant seeks to avoid.

5. In one analogous case, the Supreme Court held that where in describing the offense

of murder with double less serious physical injuries, the information states that

appellant “feloniously attack, assault and shoot for several times the victims,” it in

1
SEC. 13. Duplicity of the offense. – A complaint or information must charge only one offense,
except when the law prescribes a single punishment for various offenses.
 effect charged the accused with several distinct and separate crimes, as it is the

allegations or actual recitals in the information rather than the technical description

2 3
of the crime that controls. Likewise, in the case of People v. Ducay, the Supreme

Court ruled that several victims dying from separate shots constitute separate

offenses although charged only in one information.

4 5
6. In People v. Palijon, et al., citing People v. Pamintuan, the Supreme Court held

that the physical injuries committed during or on occasion of robo con homicidio, are

absorbed therein, irrespective of the number of homicides or physical injuries

committed.

7. In the case at bar, both the alleged killing and the physical injuries described in the

Amended Information were perpetrated during the alleged robbery with the objective

of removing both opposition and witnesses to the robbery. The physical injuries

allegedly inflicted against complainant Wilbert Muriaga and the alleged killing of

Juanito Nilooban y Ducut and Gary Muriaga y Sulit should be merged in the

composite, integrated whole of robbery with homicide— it being clear that both the

killing and physical injuries were perpetrated with the end in view of removing all
6
opposition to the robbery, suppressing the relevant evidence or both. Thus, it is

respectfully submitted that the insofar as the allegation as to the alleged Frustrated

Homicide of private complainant Wilbert Muriaga, as stated in the challenged

Amended Information, there should be no separate charge for the same, considering

that the same arose of and is deemed absorbed in Robbery with Homicide.

2
People v. Peralta, 193 SCRA 9, January 18, 1991.
3
225 SCRA 1.
4
343 SCRA 486.
5
222 SCRA 716
6
See People v. Lascuna, 225 SCRA 286, 404, (1993).
 8. Finally, accused Juan Dela Cruz was illegally arrested as revealed by the Joint

Affidavit of the arresting officers namely, SPO1 Ricardo Magtugis and PO3 Elpidio

Magsiyasat. Noteworthy, that the alleged Robbery incident occurred on August 22,

2005 whereas the warrantless arrest of accused-movant Juan Dela Cruz was

effected by virtue of a follow-up operation conducted by the police only on August

24, 2005 or two (2) days after the alleged robbery incident. Surely, the alleged

follow-up operation of the arresting team that led to the warrantless arrest of

accused Juan Dela Cruz could not be stretched beyond what the Constitution and

Rules of Court have empowered our law enforcement officers. Said follow-up

operation that led to the supposed warrantless arrest of accused Juan Dela Cruz

could not be interpreted as a “hot-pursuit”. Hence, the apprehension of accused

Juan Dela Cruz was improper for inquest investigation. On this ground, the

Amended Information should likewise be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction of this

Honorable Court over the person of accused Juan Dela Cruz.

PRAYER
WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is most respectfully prayed of this Honorable

Court that the Amended Information be QUASHED for having duplicity of offenses and for

lack of jurisdiction of this Honorable Court over the person of accused Juan Dela Cruz.

Other reliefs that are just and equitable under the premises are likewise prayed for.
 PUBLIC ATTORNEY’S OFFICE
Manila City District Office

By:

Public Attorney II
Roll No.
IBP No.
MCLE Compliance No. II:

NOTICE OF HEARING
The Branch Clerk of Court
Regional Trial Court
Branch _, Manila

GREETINGS:

Please include the foregoing motion in the Court’s calendar of cases for ,
2 at 2:00 P.M., for the consideration and resolution of the Court.

ATTY.

Hon.
Asst. City Prosecutor
Office of the City Prosecutor
Manila

GREETINGS:

Please take notice that the undersigned will submit the foregoing motion on
,2 at 2:00 P.M., for the consideration and resolution of the Honorable Court.
Copy furnished: (personal service)

Office of the City Prosecutor Quezon City