Republic of the Philippines

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF LANAO DEL SUR

___ Judicial Region
Branch __
_____________

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Criminal Case No. ______________

Plaintiff,
For:
-versus- Violation of Sec. 11, Art. II of
R.A. 9165

________________ a.k.a. “_____________”,

Accused.
x----------------------------------------------x
MOTION TO QUASH

ACCUSED ______________, by counsel,

unto this Honorable Court, most respectfully moves
for the quashal of the instant Information on the ground that:

THE HONORABLE COURT HAS NO JURISDICTION

OVER THE PERSON OF THE ACCUSED.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

Accused _____ stands charged for his alleged violation of Sec. 11 of Article
II of R.A. 9165, otherwise known as the “Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002”, of Sec.
28 (a) (e,1) of R.A. 10591, otherwise known as the ”Comprehensive Firearms
and Ammunition Regulation Act”, and of Art. 151 of the Revised Penal Code.

For easy reference, the criminal case for Violation of Sec. 11, Art. II, R.A.
9165 is pending before this Court. On the other hand, the case for Violation of Sec.
28 (a) (e,1) of R.A. 10591 is pending before the Regional Trial Court of ______,
Branch ___, while the case for Violation of Art. 151 of the Revised Penal Code is
pending before the __ Municipal Circuit Trial Court of _________________,
___________.

The accused was allegedly arrested on the occasion of a police checkpoint

and/or visibility allegedly conducted at Brgy. ______, ___________, ____________
on _____________ by the elements of ____________ Municipal Police Station.

Contrary to the allegations of complainant PLT ______________, no police

checkpoint actually transpired. What happened was:

At around ___ in the evening of ___________, accused and his wife,

were watching TV when a group of policemen, without a warrant of
arrest, forcibly opened the door of their house. Upon entering the
house, they made the accused lay on the ground facing downward.
Thereafter, they roamed around their house and made searches, leaving
their things in chaos. After few moments, they handcuffed him and
Motion to Quash | Abogadong Promdi

forced him out of the house. Then, together with ____________,

accused was made to ride the police car.

While in the police car, and while on their way to _____________

Police Station, they were being forced to admit to be in illegal
possession of dangerous drugs, but they did not give in to the pressure
and intimidation. This act of forcing them into making admissions
continued in the police station, until the policemen got tired and put
accused and __________ behind bars.

__________ slept inside the prison for more hours since their illegal
arrest, until he was set free in the afternoon of __________, on the
basis of Ten Thousand Pesos (P10,000.00) cash personally given and
handed to ______________, current chairman of Brgy.
____________, ___________, _________ by his wife
_____________, supposedly as bail bond. Accused, on the other
hand, was continuously detained without any criminal charge
having been filed against him for a period of ten (10) days from
their illegal arrest.

These facts are supported by the Affidavits of ____________ and

______________ who were witnesses to what had actually transpired in the evening
of _____________.

THE GROUND

The importance of quashing an Information based on Sec. 3 (c) of Rule 117

of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, which is “that the court trying the case
has no jurisdiction over the person of the accused”, cannot be overemphasized in the
following pronouncement of the Supreme Court, to wit:

“The right of a person to be secure against any unreasonable seizure of his body
and any deprivation of his liberty is a most basic and fundamental one. The
statute or rule which allows exceptions to the requirement of warrants of arrest
is strictly construed. Any exception must clearly fall within the situations when
securing a warrant would be absurd or is manifestly unnecessary as provided by
the Rule. We cannot liberally construe the rule on arrests without warrant or
extend its application beyond the cases specifically provided by law. To do so
would infringe upon personal liberty and set back a basic right so often violated
and so deserving of full protection.”1

It has been held that jurisdiction over the person of the accused is acquired
either thru his voluntary appearance or submission to the jurisdiction of the court, or
thru his lawful arrest.2

1
People v. Burgos, 144 SCRA 1, 14, September 4, 1986
2
See People v. Robles, et. al., G.R. No. 101335, June 8, 2000, citing People v. Alojado, G.R. Nos. 122966-67, March
25, 1999; Valdepeñas v. People, G.R. No. L-20687, April 30, 1966

2
Motion to Quash | Abogadong Promdi

As a rule, there is voluntary submission to the jurisdiction of the court when

the accused seeks affirmative relief3, such as when he files a motion to quash, appears
for arraignment, participates in the trial, or posts bail4. However, not all acts seeking
affirmative relief constitute voluntary submission to the jurisdiction of the court. A
settled exception to this rule is the filing of a Motion to Quash on the ground of lack
of jurisdiction over the person of the accused, which is not considered a voluntary
appearance or submission to the jurisdiction of the Court as it is being filed precisely
to question the latter’s jurisdiction over the person of the accused.

On the other hand, there is a lawful arrest when the arrest is made by virtue
of a valid warrant of arrest. Nevertheless, under Sec. 5, Rule 113 of the Revised Rules
of Criminal Procedure, there are three (3) instances where a peace officer or a private
person may arrest a person, without a warrant. They are:

a. When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has

committed, is actually 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. When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has

escaped from a penal establishment or place where he is
serving final judgment or is temporarily confined while
his case is pending, or has escaped while being
transferred from one confinement to another.

ARGUMENTS

The instant Information should be quashed because the warrantless arrest

upon the person of accused ____________ was not lawful. That is –

1. He had neither committed, nor was he actually

committing or attempting to commit an offense when
he was actually arrested on ____________.

2. The circumstances under which he was arrested were

not: a) that an offense had just been committed; and b)
that the arresting officer had probable cause to believe
based on personal knowledge of facts or circumstances
that the accused had committed it. There was not even
a commotion in the area, or a legitimate police
operation being conducted, or, in this case, a police
checkpoint, or anything of the likes, which could have
placed him in a situation to be a suspect; and
3
Sapugay v. Court of Appeals, 183 SCRA 464
4
See Santiago v. Vasquez, 217 SCRA 633; Antiporda, Jr. v. Garchitorena, 321 SCRA 551; Miranda v. Tuliao, 486
SCRA 377

3
Motion to Quash | Abogadong Promdi

3. He was neither a prisoner who had escaped from a

penal establishment or place where he is serving final
judgment nor was he temporarily confined while his
case is pending, nor had he escaped while being
transferred from one confinement to another.

However, the prosecution witnesses may argue and insist that: a) there was a
police checkpoint conducted on _______ by the elements of ______________
Municipal Police Station; b) accused committed a crime when he refused to stop and
submit himself to a routine inspection, when he was asked to, during said checkpoint,
thereby violating Art. 151 of the Revised Penal Code; and c) as a consequence of such
violation, the warrantless arrest upon his person is lawful in accordance with Section
5, par. (a) of Rule 113 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure.

The accused strongly disagrees.

Paragraph (a) of Section 5 is commonly known as an in flagrante delicto arrest.

According to the Supreme Court, for a warrantless arrest of an accused caught in
flagrante delicto to be valid, two requisites must concur, to wit: (1) that the person to be
arrested must execute an overt act indicating that he has just committed, is actually
committing, or is attempting to commit a crime; and (2) that such overt act is done
in the presence or within the view of the arresting officer.5 (emphasis supplied)

In this case, to determine whether or not accused executed that overt act
to begin with, the accused humbly submits that it is necessary that we look into
whether or not the elements of the crime - for which accused was charged to have
committed when he was arrested - are complete. This crime is Violation of Art. 151
of the Revised Penal Code.

Art. 151 of the Revised Penal Code provides, thus:

“Art. 151. Resistance and disobedience to a person in authority or the agents of such person. -
The penalty of arresto mayor and a fine not exceeding 500 pesos shall be imposed
upon any person who xxx shall resist or seriously disobey any person in
authority, or the agents of such person, while engaged in the performance of
official duties.”

In Sydeco v. People6, the Supreme Court enumerated the key elements of

resistance and serious disobedience punished under Art. 151 of the Revised Penal
Code. They are: (1) that a person in authority or his agent is engaged in the
performance of official duty or gives a lawful order to the offender; and (2) that the
offender resists or seriously disobeys such person or his agent.

Here, even assuming arguendo that a checkpoint indeed took place and that
accused really refused to stop when he was asked to, there can still be no lawful
warrantless arrest upon his person. This is because the second element of the crime
under Art. 151 of the RPC is absent.

5
People v. Pavia and Buendia, G.R. No. 202687, January 14, 2015.
6
G.R. No. 202692, November 12, 2014

4
Motion to Quash | Abogadong Promdi

The earlier-cited case of Sydeco v. People teaches us that not every disobedient
act of a person constitutes resistance or serious disobedience in contemplation of Art.
151 of the RPC. This is especially true in the absence of any overt act warranting a
reasonable inference of criminal activity.

In said case, a confrontational stand-off occured between the police team, on

one hand, and petitioner Sydeco on the other, when the latter refused to get off of
the vehicle for a body and vehicle search juxtaposed by his insistence on a plain view
search only. In deciding for the petitioner, the Supreme Court held that:

“Petitioner’s twin gestures cannot plausibly be considered as resisting a lawful

order. He may have sounded boorish or spoken crudely at that time, but none
of this would make him a criminal. It remains to stress that the petitioner has
not, when flagged down, committed a crime or performed an overt act
warranting a reasonable inference of criminal activity. He did not try to
avoid the road block established. He came to a full stop when so required to
stop. (emphasis supplied)

“...And it bears to emphasize that there was no reasonable suspicion of the

occurrence of a crime that would allow what jurisprudence refers to as a
"stop and frisk" action.” (emphasis supplied)

Here, it can be noted that aside from the allegation that accused refused to
stop, there was no showing that he was exhibiting any unusual conduct that would
have given rise to a reasonable suspicion of the occurrence of a crime, which, in
turn, would have necessitated a “stop and frisk” action on the part of the police
officers. That is, such suspicion would have made the order of the police officers -
for accused to stop - absolutely necessary, which, in turn, would have made
accused’s refusal an act of “resistance” or “serious disobedience” within the
context of Art. 151 of the RPC.

With the foregoing, it is the humble opinion of the accused that he had not
violated Art. 151 of the Revised Penal Code. Hence, there was no valid in flagrante
delicto arrest against his person.

Frame-up

Needless to say, the absence of a valid in flagrante delicto arrest is even

more apparent in frame-up cases - like the case of herein accused - where no
legitimate police checkpoint was actually conducted.

The fact that there was a frame-up, or that the alleged checkpoint on
________ was a sham, can be established by: a) the hereto attached Affidavits of the
accused’s witnesses; and b) the acts, omissions or irregularities committed by the
prosecution witness/es as shown in the “Affidavit-Complaint” executed by PLT
__________, the “Affidavit” jointly executed by him and PSsg _____________ and
PCpl _________________, and the documents attached to the records. Some of
these irregularities were violative not only of the PNP Manual on Anti-Illegal Drugs
Operations and Investigation, but also of the Chain of Custody Rule under Sec. 21,
Art. II of R.A. 9165, as well as the Constitutional and statutory rights of the accused
against illegal arrest and arbitrary detention . These are:

5
Motion to Quash | Abogadong Promdi

1. The accused was illegally arrested in the evening of

_____________ at their house located at Brgy.
_____________, ___________, _________, and was
subsequently detained at _____________ Police Station
located at Brgy. _________, ____________,
______________. From that date until _________, or
for a period of ten (10) days, accused, without having
waived his right under Art. 125 of the Revised Penal
Code, was continuously being unlawfully detained at
said police station without any case having been filed in
court against him;

2. The police checkpoint, including all incidents thereafter

- like the marking and inventory of the allegedly
confiscated pieces of evidence - supposedly occurred at
night, but the photos tell otherwise. For example, the
attached photos showing the accused and presumably
the arresting officer/s and the Brgy. Chairman and the
police officers involved in the arrest of the accused, tell
that these photos were taken during daytime. This,
notwithstanding the fact that the windows and the door
of the room where such photos were taken were closed;

3. No representative from the National Prosecution

Service and the media was present during the conduct
of markings and physical inventory of the seized items,
and no justifiable grounds for such non-compliance
were provided; and

4. The taking of photographs and the conduct of markings

and physical inventory were not made immediately after
seizure - since they were made the following day based
on the photos, and no justifiable grounds for such non-
compliance were provided.

In People v. Pavia7, the Supreme Court said that the defense of frame-up has
been invariably viewed with disfavor because it can easily be concocted. Accordingly,
in order to prosper, the defense must be proved with strong and convincing evidence
that the police officers were inspired by any improper motive. Otherwise, the
presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty by law enforcement
agents shall prevail.

However, in People v. Siaton8, the Court has this to say:

“It may be true that where no ill motive can be attributed to the police officers,
presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty should prevail.
However, such presumption obtains only where there is no deviation from

7
G.R. No. 202687, January 14, 2015
8
G.R. No. 208353, July 4, 2016

6
Motion to Quash | Abogadong Promdi

the regular performance of duty. A presumption of regularity in the

performance of official duty applies when nothing in the record suggests that
the law enforcers deviated from the standard conduct of official duty required
by law. Conversely, where the official act is irregular on its face, the
presumption cannot arise.” (emphasis supplied)

Here, the fact that the police officers deviated from the standard conduct of
official duty required by law, is proved by the above acts, omissions and/or
irregularities. As can be observed, these irregularities are too substantial to be ignored
that they may even constitute the ground/s for the Honorable Court to dismiss the
instant case for lack of probable cause, in view of the Supreme Court ruling in the
recent case of People v. Lim, G.R. No. 231989, September 4, 2018.

With the foregoing, the accused humbly submits that presumption of

regularity cannot lie in favor of the prosecution witnesses. Consequently, accused’s
defense of frame-up must be upheld.

PRAYER

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

Honorable Court that, after due notice and hearing, the instant Information be
quashed on the ground that the court has no jurisdiction over the person of the
accused there being no valid arrest conducted against his person.

The accused’s consequent release from detention and such other reliefs
deemed just and proper under the circumstances are likewise most respectfully prayed
for.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED.
_____________.
______, ____________ (for _________, _______________), Philippines.

ABOGADONG PROMDI
Counsel for the Accused
_______________________________
Roll of Attorneys No. _____
IBP O.R. No. _________; ___________; Pasig City
PTR No. ___________; __________; ____________, ____________
MCLE Compliance No. (In Process - 2017 Bar Passer)
___________________

NOTICE OF HEARING

TO: THE CLERK OF COURT

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT BRANCH __
_____________, ______________

THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

OFFICE OF THE PROVINCIAL PROSECUTOR
_____________, ________________

7
Motion to Quash | Abogadong Promdi

G R E E T I N G S:

Please submit the foregoing MOTION TO QUASH for the consideration and approval
of the Honorable Court on ______________ at 8:30 in the morning.

ABOGADONG PROMDI

Copy furnished:

THE HONORABLE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

__________, _______________