Republic of the Philippines

11th Judicial Region

3 MUNICIPAL CIRCUIT TRIAL COURT
rd

Tago-San Miguel, Surigao del Sur

Tago, Surigao del Sur

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES Criminal Case No. 7212-SM

Plaintiff. For: GRAVE COERCION

- versus -

BEN X X X
Accused.
x-----------------------------------------------x

MOTION TO QUASH INFORMATION

Accused, BEN X X X, through the Public Attorney’s Office, unto this
Honorable Court, most respectfully moves for the quashal of the
Information on the ground of lack of jurisdiction over the person of the
Accused, further averring that:

Propriety and Timeliness

1. Since the penalty prescribed for the crime charged is prision

correccional, this case falls under the regular procedure and is
governed by A.M. No. 15-06-10-SC otherwise known as The
Revised Guidelines for Continuous Trial of Criminal Cases
(“Guidelines” hereinafter);

2. Item III(2)(b)(iv) of the Guidelines provides that a motion to quash

information is deemed a prohibited pleading only when the ground is
not one of those enumerated in Section 3, Rule 117 of the Revised
Rules of Criminal Procedure (“Rules” hereinafter);

3. Section 3(c) of Rule 117 of the Rules in relation to Section 1 thereof

states that at any time before the accused enters his plea, he may
move to quash the information on the ground that the court trying the
case has no jurisdiction over the person of the accused;

4. The Information was filed on April 27, 2023 and the case is set for
arraignment on May 10, 2023, hence this motion is timely filed;

Facts surrounding the Arrest of the Accused

5. The Complainant Glice X X X., (“Complainant Glice X X X”

hereinafter) in his Judicial Affidavit 1, explained that on April 24, 2023

1
Judicial Affidavit of Complainant Glice X X X.

Page 1 of 10
 at 2:30 in the afternoon, his driver Warren X X X called him up to
inform him that he was extorted and threatened by the Accused
who, using a sharp bladed weapon, allegedly demanded from him
that his sand and gravel be unloaded to Sitio Napo of Barangay
Siagao, San Miguel, Surigao del Sur 2. After the incident was
reported at the police station, he allegedly learned that the suspect
was already apprehended and placed under the custody of San
Miguel Municipal Police Station, Surigao del Sur (“San Miguel MPS”
hereinafter)3;

6. The Witness Warren X X X (“Witness Warren X X X” hereinafter),

who is the Complainant’s driver, swears in his Judicial Affidavit 4 that
after witnessing the alleged acts of the Accused constituting the
crime charged5, he immediately informed his foreman and
contractor, who in turn immediately informed his boss, and together,
they went to San Miguel MPS to report the incident6;

7. To shed light to the above-mentioned testimonies as to the actual

date and time the incident was reported to San Miguel MPS,
Patrolman Arnie X X X (“Pat. Arnie X X X” hereinafter), in the
Affidavit of Apprehension7 he executed, swore that the Witness
Warren X X X and Complainant Glice X X X reported the matter to
San Miguel MPS only on April 25, 2023 at around 10:00 in the
morning8;

8. Pat. Arnie X X X elucidated that after the incident was reported,

Police Major Arnel X X X (“PMAJ Arnel X X X” hereinafter) instructed
the fetching, invitation and the bringing of the Accused to the San
Miguel MPS9. In addition, when the Accused was already at the
station, he was positively identified by the witness and allegedly,
upon confirmation that the offense was made, the Accused was
arrested10;

9. Meanwhile, PMAJ Arnel X X X executed a Certificate of Detention 11

dated April 25, 2023 stating that the Accused allegedly surrendered
voluntarily to San Miguel MPS12;

10. Finally, the Resolution of the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor 13 in

relation to the inquest proceeding conducted indicated that the arrest
was valid and lawful considering that the police officers were able to

2
Answer to Question No. 1, supra note 1, page 1.
3
Answer to Question No. 3, supra note 1, page 1.
4
Judicial Affidavit of Witness Warren X X X.
5
Answer to Question No. 4, supra note 4, page 2.
6
Answer to Question No. 6, supra note 4, page 2.
7
Affidavit of Apprehension dated April 25, 2023.
8
Paragraph 2, supra note 7, page 2.
9
Paragraph 3, supra note 7, page 2.
10
Id.
11
Certificate of Detention dated April 25, 2023.
12
Id.
13
Resolution dated April 25, 2023.

Page 2 of 10
 arrest the Accused immediately after the crime was reported to them
and after having acquired personal knowledge that the Accused was
indeed the person who committed the crime14;

The Court has No Jurisdiction

Over the Person of the Accused

11. Section 5, Rule 113 of the Rules provides that a person may be
arrested without a warrant under any of the three (3) circumstances
enumerated therein;

(a) Not an In Flagrante Delicto Arrest

12. First, when in the presence of the person arresting, the person to be
arrested has committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to
commit an offense,15 the person may be arrested without a warrant;

13. In People of the Philippines vs. Joselito del Rosario 16, the Court had
the occasion to explain the meaning of the phrase “in his presence”
in relation to Section 5, Paragraph (a), of Rule 113 of the Rules, to
wit:

“x x x when a police officer sees the offense, although at a

distance, or hears the disturbances created thereby, and
proceeds at once to the scene thereof, he may effect an arrest
without a warrant on the basis of Sec. 5, par. (a), Rule 113
since the offense is deemed committed in his presence or
within his view. In essence, Sec. 5, par. (a), Rule 113,
requires that the accused be caught in flagrante delicto or
caught immediately after the consummation of the act. x x x”
(Emphasis supplied);

14. An in flagrante delicto arrest under Section 5(a), Rule 113 of the
Rules is not just any instance when the arrest took place
immediately after a crime was committed. It must be emphasized
that the concurrence of two (2) elements is required for there to be
an in flagrante delicto arrest. In Marvin Porteria y Manebali vs.
People of the Philippines17, the Court enumerated these requisites in
this wise:

“(a) the person arrested must execute an overt act indicating

that he or she has just committed, is actually committing, or is
attempting to commit a crime; and

(b) the overt act was done in the presence or within the view
of the arresting officer”;

14
Paragraph 4, supra note 13, page 2.
15
Section 5(a), Rule 113, Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure.
16
G.R. No. 127755, April 14, 1999, citing People of the Philippines vs. Edison Sucro, G.R. No. 93239, March
18, 1991.
17
G.R. No. 233777, March 20, 2019.

Page 3 of 10
 15. At the time of the arrest of the Accused on April 25, 2023, he had
just entered the San Miguel MPS after he was fetched, invited and
brought therein upon instruction of PMAJ Arnel X X X and
subsequently identified by the Complainant and the Witness 18. He
was not committing or attempting to commit a crime, whose arrest
could be effected even without a warrant, when he was arrested on
that day;

16. Since the offense as charged happened on April 24, 2023 but the
arrest took place after the concerned party reported the incident to
the police the following day or on April 25, 2023, clearly, the
Accused could not have possibly committed, was actually
committing or attempting to commit the crime within the arresting
officer’s view. That is, the crime could not have possibly been
committed in the presence of the arresting officer or within his view
since he only found out about it the day after the incident happened
after it was reported to San Miguel MPS. The Judicial Affidavit of
Complainant Glice X X X and Witness Warren X X X as well as the
Affidavit of Apprehension of Pat. Arnie X X X are replete of
admissions that the crime allegedly committed took place on April
24, 2023 and not in the presence or within the view of the arresting
officer and the arrest in fact happened only on April 25, 2023 after
the latter came to know of such fact through the report of the
Complainant Glice X X X and Witness Warren X X X;

17. Hence, it is respectfully submitted that the Accused was definitely

not arrested in flagrante delicto;

(b) Not an Arrest Effected in Hot Pursuit

18. Second, 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 19, the
person may be arrested without a warrant;

19. The Court, in People of the Philippines vs. Anthony Escordial 20,
explained what constitutes the phrase “personal knowledge of facts”
under Section 5(b) of Rule 113 of the Rules in this wise:

“Personal knowledge of facts in arrests without a warrant

under Section 5(b) of Rule 113 must be based upon
“probable cause” which means “an actual belief or
reasonable grounds of suspicion.” The grounds of
suspicion are reasonable when, in the absence of actual
belief of the arresting officers, the suspicion that the
person to be arrested is probably guilty of committing the
offense is based on actual facts, i.e., supported by
18
Supra note 9 and 10, page 2.
19
Section 5(b), Rule 113, Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure.
20
G.R. Nos. 138934-35, January 16, 2002, citing Roger Posadas et. al., vs Ombudsman et. al., G.R. No.
131492, September 29, 2000 citing People of the Philippines vs. Florencia Doria y Bolado et. al., G.R. No.
125299, January 22, 1999.

Page 4 of 10
 circumstances sufficiently strong in themselves to create
the probable cause of guilt of the person to be arrested. A
reasonable suspicion therefore must be founded on probable
cause, coupled with good faith on the part of the peace officer
making the arrest.” (Emphasis supplied);

20. Still, in Marvin Porteria y Manebali21, the Court explained that in a

hot pursuit arrest, there must be an offense that was just committed,
and the arresting officer had personal knowledge of facts indicating
that the accused committed it;

21. The crime allegedly took place on April 24, 2023 however, the
Accused was arrested only on April 25, 2023– a day after the
occurrence of the crime– following the report of the incident by the
Complainant Glice X X X and Witness Warren X X X to San Miguel
MPS and subsequently after the Accused was fetched, invited and
brought thereto, upon the instruction of PMaj Arnel X X X 22;

22. The facts glaringly show that the arresting officer had no personal
knowledge either based on actual belief or reasonable ground of
suspicion because the crime could not have been known to the
arresting officer if not for the incident reported to them by the
Complainant Glice X X X and Witness Warren X X X the day after
the crime allegedly took place;

23. As the arresting officer was not present when the crime was
allegedly committed, there could not have been a personal
knowledge on his part of the facts and circumstances of the
commission of the crime so as to be justified in the belief that the
Accused was guilty of the same;

24. Hence, it is respectfully submitted that the arrest of the Accused

was certainly not effected in hot pursuit;

(c) Not an Escaped Prisoner

25. Third, 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
another23, the person may be arrested without a warrant;

26. Clearly, the Accused is not an escaped prisoner whose arrest could
be effected even without a warrant;

(d) No reason for Not Securing a Warrant

21
Supra note 17, page 3.
22
Supra note 2, 3, 5, 6, 8 and 9, page 2.
23
Section 5(c), Rule 113, Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure.

Page 5 of 10
 27. In view of the foregoing, the Resolution of the Office of the
Provincial Prosecutor in relation to the inquest proceeding
conducted indicating that the arrest was valid and lawful reasoning
that the police officers were able to arrest the Accused immediately
after the crime was reported to them and after having acquired
personal knowledge that the Accused was indeed the person who
committed the crime24, has no leg to stand on. The arrest of the
Accused would neither qualify as an in flagrante delicto arrest nor an
arrest effected in hot pursuit;

28. An invalid warrantless arrest means that the Court did not acquire
jurisdiction over the person of the Accused;

(e) No voluntary surrender

29. Furthermore, although the phrase “voluntarily surrendered” was

used in the Certification of Detention to describe how the Accused
was detained, it is submitted that there was no voluntary surrender
by the Accused in the manner contemplated in Philippine
Jurisprudence such that the Court was able to acquire jurisdiction
over his person;

30. First, it bears emphasis that the Affidavit of Apprehension 25

contradicted the Certification of Detention26. On the one hand, the
former was a sworn admission by a public officer that at the time the
Accused was arrested, he had just entered the San Miguel MPS
after he was fetched, invited and brought therein upon instruction of
PMAJ Arnel X X X and subsequently identified by the Complainant
and his Witness27. On the other hand, the latter was an unsworn
statement by a public officer that the Accused voluntarily
surrendered to the San Miguel MPS;

31. In People of the Philippines vs. Pablo Arposeple y Sanchez 28, the
Court explained that the presumption of regularity of performance of
official duty stands only when no reason exists in the records by
which to doubt the regularity of the performance of official duty.
Indeed, the presumption of regularity is a disputable presumption
which cannot prevail in all instances, as in this case when the sworn
Affidavit of Apprehension issued by another in the performance of
his official duty contradicts it head on;

32. Second, settled is the principle that when after the filing of the
information, a warrant for the arrest of the accused is issued and he
either voluntarily submitted himself to the court or was duly arrested,
the Court thereby acquired jurisdiction over the person of the
accused29;

24
Supra note 14, page 3.
25
Supra note 7, page 2.
26
Supra note 11, page 2.
27
Supra note 9 and 10, page 2.
28
G.R. No. 205787, November 22, 2017.

Page 6 of 10
 33. Although no warrant of arrest was issued since the Accused was
already detained upon the filing of the Information in Court, it cannot
also be said that the Accused voluntarily surrendered such that the
jurisdiction over his person was acquired by the Court;

34. In People of the Philippines vs. Ramon Placer 30, the Court
explained that voluntary surrender is a circumstance that reduces
the penalty for the offense. Its requisites as a mitigating
circumstance are that: (1) the accused has not been actually
arrested; (2) the accused surrenders himself to a person in authority
or the latter’s agent; and (3) the surrender is voluntary;

35. In the sworn Affidavit of Apprehension31, it was clear that the

Accused was fetched, invited and brought to the San Miguel MPS
after which he was positively identified by Complainant Glice X X X
and Witness Warren X X X and thereafter, arrested32;

36. Hence, the Accused did not voluntarily surrender. He had actually
been arrested. The Accused was not present at the San Miguel MPS
to surrender voluntarily, he was fetched, invited and brought there.
Thus, no such act of surrender was performed. It follows then that no
surrender could have happened voluntarily;

Conclusion: Custody of the Law only

but not Jurisdiction of the Court over
his Person

37. Indeed, jurisdiction over the person of the accused is conferred

upon the court either by the voluntary surrender of the accused or by
his arrest to answer for the crime charged;

38. There was neither a valid warrantless arrest nor was a warrant of
arrest secured prior to his detention. Furthermore, the Accused also
did not voluntarily surrender;

39. At present, the Accused is merely under the custody of the law but
not yet subject to the jurisdiction of the court over his person;

40. In Jose C. Miranda, Alberto P. Dalmacio, and Romeo B. Ocon vs.

Virgilio M. Tuliao33, the Court distinguished between custody of the
law and jurisdiction over the person. The Court described the
custody of the law as one that is accomplished either by arrest or
voluntary surrender, while jurisdiction over the person of the
accused is acquired upon his arrest or voluntary appearance.
Although as a general rule, the jurisdiction over the person of the
29
Republic of the Philippines (People of the Philippines) vs. Hon. Delfin Vir. Sunga et. al., G.R. No. L-38634,
June 20, 1988.
30
G.R. No. 181753, October 9, 2013, citing Article 13, Paragraph 7 of the Revised Penal Code.
31
Supra note 7, page 2.
32
Supra note 9 and 10, page 2.
33
G.R. No. 158763, March 31, 2006.

Page 7 of 10
 accused is deemed waived by the accused when he files any
pleading seeking an affirmative relief as it would thereby constitute
voluntary appearance, this is not without exception. The Court
explained it in this wise:

“There is, however, an exception to the rule that filing

pleadings seeking affirmative relief constitutes voluntary
appearance, and the consequent submission of one’s person
to the jurisdiction of the court. This is in the case of pleadings
whose prayer is precisely for the avoidance of the jurisdiction
of the court, which only leads to a special appearance. These
pleadings are: x x x (2) in criminal cases, motions to quash a
complaint on the ground of lack of jurisdiction over the person
of the accused x x x consequences of the fact that failure to
file them would constitute a waiver of the defense of lack of
jurisdiction over the person.”;

41. Hence, by filing this Motion, the Accused merely invokes the special
jurisdiction of the Honorable Court by impugning such jurisdiction
over his person.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is most respectfully prayed

of this Honorable Court that the instant Motion to Quash Information be
given merit and that the Information be QUASHED on the ground of lack of
jurisdiction over the person of the Accused.

Signed this 8th day of May, 2023 at Tandag City, (for Tago, Surigao
del Sur) Surigao del Sur, Philippines.

PUBLIC ATTORNEY’S OFFICE

Tandag City District
Quezon St., Brgy. Bongtud, Tandag City

ZARAH DONNA S. DOMINGO

Public Attorney I
Cell Phone No. 09157936537/09338692277
Email ad: zarahdomingo@gmail.com
IBP Receipt No. 252275; 12/21/2022; Pasig City
Attorney’s Roll No. 75872/TIN 441-434-353
MCLE Compliance No. VII-0008809; 02/11/2022

NOTED BY:

Page 8 of 10
 PORFERIO M. BALURAN, JR.
Public Attorney III
District Public Attorney
Cell Phone No. 0929-1974-789
Email ad: jun_baluran@yahoo.com
IBP Lifetime ID No. 06414/01-02-07-Tandag City
Attorney’s Roll No. 39657/TIN 182-429-410
MCLE Compliance Number VII-0024952/12-27-22

NOTICE OF HEARING

THE BRANCH CLERK OF COURT

Municipal Circuit Trial Court in Cities
Tago-San Miguel

GREETINGS:

Please include the foregoing motion in the Court’s Calendar of Cases for
the consideration and resolution of the Court on May 10, 2023.

ATTY. ZARAH DONNA S. DOMINGO

EXPLANATION

A copy of this Motion was personally served to the public prosecutor.

ATTY. ZARAH DONNA S. DOMINGO

Copy Furnished:

Pros. _____________________
Office of the Provincial Prosecutor
Tandag City, Surigao del Sur

Republic of the Philippines }

Province of Surigao del Sur }

Page 9 of 10
City of Tandag } S.S.
VERIFICATION AND CERTIFICATION
I, BEN X X X, of legal age, single, Filipino, and a resident of Purok 4,
Brgy. Carromata, San Miguel, Surigao del Sur, after having been sworn to
under oath in accordance with law, hereby depose and state that:
1.) I am the Accused in the Criminal Case for Grave Coercion filed
before the Municipal Circuit Trial Court of Tago-San Miguel,
docketed as Criminal Case No. 7212-SM;
2.) I have caused the preparation and filing of the foregoing Motion;
3.) I have read and understood the allegations therein certifying that its
contents are true and correct based on my own personal knowledge,
as may be supported by authentic documents;
4.) The same is not filed to harass, cause unnecessary delay, or
needlessly increase the cost of litigation, and the factual allegations
therein have evidentiary support or, if specifically identified, will
likewise have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for
discovery;
5.) I certify that: a.) I have not commenced any other action or
proceeding involving the same issues in the Supreme Court, Court
of Appeals, or any other court, tribunal or agency; b.) To the best of
my knowledge, no such action or proceeding pending in the
Supreme Court, Court of Appeals, or different divisions thereof, or in
any other tribunal or agency; and c.) Should I learn thereafter that a
similar action or proceeding has been filed or is pending before the
Supreme Court, Court of Appeals, or different divisions thereof, or
any other tribunal or agency, I undertake to promptly inform the
aforesaid courts and such other tribunal or agency of that fact within
five (5) days therefrom.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand on the 8th day of
May, 2023 at the City of Tandag, Surigao del Sur, Philippines.

BEN X X X
Affiant
_______________________

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO before me this 8 th day of May 2023 at

the City of Tandag, Province of Surigao del Sur, Philippines, affiant having
executed to me competent evidence of identity and is personally known to
me. Said affiant has avowed before me, under penalty of law, to the whole
truth of the contents of herein document signed by the same in my
presence.

Page 10 of 10