FINALS

In
Legal Writing

Rey Nio Abrahan

Student LLB-1
Room 408

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
7TH JUDICIAL REGION
BRANCH 666
CEBU CITY
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,
Plaintiff
Criminal Case No. 14344
---versus---

For: Murder

JOB HUTT
Accused
X--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------///
MOTION TO QUASH
(Accused) Job Hutt (Hutt), through counsel, and unto this
Honorable Court, most humbly and respectfully files this Motion to
Quash and states that:
The complaint or information filed against Job Hutt be quashed
on the grounds that this Honorable Court trying the case has no
jurisdiction over the person of the accused because:
1. The arrest made on the accused was illegal;
2. The preliminary investigation was made even if client was
without counsel.
PREFATORY
The Constitutional duty of this Court in criminal litigations is not
only to acquit the innocent after trial but to insulate, from the start, the
innocent from unfounded charges. For the Court is aware of the
strains of a criminal accusation and the stresses of litigation which
should not be suffered by the clearly innocent. The filing of an
unfounded criminal information in court exposes the innocent to
severe distress especially when the crime is not bailable. Even an

acquittal of the innocent will not fully bleach the dark and deep stains
left by a baseless accusation for reputation once tarnished remains
tarnished for a long length of time. The expense to establish
innocence may also be prohibitive and can be more punishing
especially to the poor and the powerless. Innocence ought to be
enough and the business of this Court is to shield the innocent from
senseless suits right from the start.1
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
1. On January 5, 2014, a certain Amy Dala was murdered.
2. On January 7, 2014, a witness named Jan Go identified Job
Hutt as Amy Dalas shooter. Jan Go identified Job Hutt among the
five photographs of male persons that the police showed to him.
3. On January 8, 2014, the police, acting on the information
supplied by Jan Go, arrested Job Hutt in his residence while eating.
The arrest however was without warrant.
4. After Job Hutts arrest, the police presented him to the media as
Amy Dalas murderer.
5. On the same day, January 8, 2014, the police filed criminal
complaint for murder against Job hurt with the prosecutor's office.
6. Job Hutt signed a waiver of his arrest while the office of the
prosecutor conducted a preliminary investigation.
7. On February 3, 2014, the office of the prosecutor filed a case of
murder against Job Hutt.
ISSUES
1. Whether the arrest made on Job Hutt is illegal?
2. Whether the waiver Job Hutt signed is invalid and that he is not
precluded in questioning the illegality of his arrest?
3. Whether the preliminary investigation made on him is invalid.

1 Dissenting Opinion, Justice Renato Puno. Roberts, Jr. v. Court of

Appeals, 254 SCRA 307, March 5, 1996.

In short, the police erred in arresting Job Hutt without a warrant.

They also erred in making him sign a waiver thats supposed to cure
the defect of the warrantless arrest. Job Hutt was also denied of a
procedural due process, as he was not informed of any notice with
regard to his preliminary investigation.
ARGUMENTS
A careful study of the facts and evidence reveals the following:
1. When the witness named Jan Go identified Job Hutt as the
shooter on January 7, 2014, the police did not proceed with the
technicalities of obtaining a warrant of arrest. Instead, they arrested
Job Hutt without a
warrant the next day January 8, 2014.
Thus, on the issue on warrantless arrest, Rule 113,
Section 5 of the Rules
on Criminal Procedure provide:
A peace officer or a private person may, without a
warrant, arrest a
person:
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 temporarily confined while his case
is pending, or has escaped while being transferred from one
confinement to another.
In the present case, the documented facts shows that the arrest
made on Job Hutt does not fall in any of the circumstances above.
In (a), Job Hutt was not in flagrante delicto or is not in the act of
committing the crime when arrested. In (b), the police officer had
no personal knowledge of facts or circumstances that Job Hutt
indeed committed the crime. They relied solely to the testimony of
Jan Go, the witness. In (c), Job Hutt is not a prisoner who escaped
from a penal establishment but is just an
ordinary citizen who
was having his meal when he was arrested.

2. There are similar cases in which the Supreme Court

invalidated a
warrantless search on the ground that the officers
could have applied for a search warrant; the concerned officers
received the tip either days prior to the arrival or in the afternoon of
a working day. In People vs. Aminudin, 162 SCRA 402, this Court
found that the officers received the tip two days prior to the actual
date of arrival of accused Aminudin. In People vs. Encinadak, 280
SCRA 72, the police officers were tipped off at 4:00 P.M. on May
20, 1992 that accused Encinada would arrive at 7:00
A.M.
the
next day. Thus, the officers had time to obtain search warrants
inasmuch as Administrative Circulars 13 and 19 of the Supreme
Court allowed the application for search warrants even after
office hours. In People vs. Aruta, G.R. No. 120915, the police
officers received the information on December 13, 1988 that accused
Aruta would arrive on a Victory Liner Bus at 6:30 P.M. on December
14, 1999, giving them a day to obtain a warrant. In the case at
hand, it should also be noted that the police had a reasonable
amount of time in obtaining a warrant since there was a lapse of
one day, where the name of the accused is known, before he made
an arrest and such procedure should have been observed.
3. After Job Hutts arrest, he was made to sign a waiver in
relation to his
arrest. Such extrajudicial waiver should be
considered illegal considering
that the signing was made
without the presence of a counsel.
The established rule as held in People v. Zalameda, G.R. No.
183656, is that an accused may be estopped from assailing the
legality of his arrest if he failed to move for the quashing of the
information against him before
his arraignment. Any objection
involving the arrest or the procedure in the
courts acquisition of
jurisdiction over the person of an accused must be made before he
enters his pleas; otherwise the objection is deemed waived.
It was also held in People v. Aminola, G.R. No. 178062 that a
warrantless
arrest is not a jurisdictional defect and any objection
to it is waived when
the person arrested submits to arraignment
without any objection.
Therefore, the right to question the illegality of an arrest is
deemed waived if such illegality was not questioned before
arraignment. In
the case at hand, the waiver is not kind of
waiver contemplated by
jurisprudence as a valid waiver. Thus,
the illegality of the arrest can still be
raised, as the arraignment
has not started yet.

4. The prosecutor conducted his preliminary investigation on

the same day
without giving notice to Job Hutt and informing him
that he has the right to have a counsel; or by providing him counsel.
.
Section 14 of the 1987 Constitution states:
No person shall be held to answer for a criminal offense
without due
process of law.
Due process is comprised of two components -- substantive
due process
which requires the intrinsic validity of the law in
interfering with the rights
of the person to his life, liberty, or
property, and procedural due process which consists of the two
basic rights of notice and hearing, as well as the guarantee of
being heard by an impartial and competent
tribunal2
(Emphasis supplied.);
The right to counsel, a very basic requirement of substantive
due process, should always be observed. Indeed, rights to counsel
and to due process of law are two of fundamental rights guaranteed
by the 1987
Constitution to person under investigation, be the
proceeding administrate
civil, or criminal. Thus, Section 12(1),
Article III thereof specifically provides:
"Any
person
under
investigation for the commission of an offense shall have the right
to ... have compete and independent counsel preferably of his own
choice. If the person cannot afford the service of
counsel, he must
be provided with one. These rights cannot be waived
except in
3
writing in the presence of counsel."
In the case at hand, Job Hutt was made to sign a waiver without a
presence of a counsel. A preliminary investigation was also
conducted and as a result he was unable to present any evidence.
The illegality of the arrest would give effect that the court has no
jurisdiction over a person, in this case, Job Hutt.
Rule 117, Section 3 provides:
The accused may move to quash the complaint or information on
any of
the following grounds:
a. xxx
b. xxx
2 Sec. of Justice v. Lantion, 332 SCRA 160
3 Section 12 (1), 1987 Constitution

c. That the court trying the case has no jurisdiction over

the person of the accused.
Thus, the court has not acquired jurisdiction over Job Hutt
because the arrest made on him was illegal, as it did not satisfy the
circumstances that applies to warrantless arrest and that the police
officers failed to secure a warrant when they had a reasonable
amount of time in obtaining one.
PRAYER
WHEREFORE, (Accused) Job Hutt respectfully prays to the
Honorable Court to quash the information, and dismiss the criminal
charge against him.
Job Hutt likewise respectfully prays for other just and equitable
relief.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED.
Cebu City, March 7, 2014
__________________________
Counsel of the Accused

ANNA QUINN
PTR NO. 1845041; 1.31.2014; C.C
IBP OR. No. 943051; 1.06.2014; C.C.
Roll of Attorneys No. 53130
MCLE Compliance No. 0061059; November 2013
Email: anna_quinn@gmail.com

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT

7TH JUDICIAL REGION

BRANCH 666
CEBU CITY
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,
Plaintiff
Criminal Case No. 14344
---versus---

For: Murder

JOB HUTT
Accused
X--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------///
OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO QUASH
Plaintiffs People of the Philippines, through counsel, and unto
this Honorable Court, most humbly and respectfully files this
Opposition to Motion to Quash and states that:
The motion to quash be denied on the grounds that:
1. The arrest was done in the interest of justice and is therefore
legal.
2. The irregularity of the preliminary investigation is not a ground
to quash the information.
PREFATORY STATEMENT
While it is true that rules of procedure are intended to promote
rather than frustrate the ends of justice, and the swift unclogging of
court dockets is a laudable objective, it nevertheless must not be met
at the expense of substantial justice. Time and again, this Court has
reiterated the doctrine that the rules of procedure are mere tools
intended to facilitate the attainment of justice, rather than frustrate it.
A strict and rigid application of the rules must always be eschewed
when it would subvert the primary objective of the rules, that is, to
enhance fair trials and expedite justice. Technicalities should never
be used to defeat the substantive rights of the other party. Every
party-litigant must be afforded the amplest opportunity for the proper

and just determination of his cause, free from the constraints of

technicalities. Thus, the CA should have refrained from hastily
dismissing the petition on procedural flaws. 4
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
1. On January 5, 2014, a certain Amy Dala was murdered.
2. On January 7, 2014, a witness named Jan Go identified Job
Hutt as Amy Dalas shooter. Jan Go identified Job Hutt among the
five photographs of male persons that the police showed to him.
3. On January 8, 2014, the police, acting on the information
supplied by Jan Go, arrested Job Hutt in his residence while eating.
The arrest however was without warrant.
4. After Job Hutts arrest, the police presented him to the media as
Amy Dalas murderer in the interest of Justice.
5. On the same day, January 8, 2014, the police filed criminal
complaint for murder against Job hurt with the prosecutor's office.
6. Job Hutt signed a waiver of his arrest while the office of the
prosecutor conducted a preliminary investigation.
7. On February 3, 2014, the office of the prosecutor filed a case of
murder against Job Hutt.
ISSUES
1. The arrest made on Job Hutt is for the interest of justice and is
therefore valid.
2. The irregularity of the preliminary investigation is not a ground for
a motion to quash.

ARGUMENTS

4 Philippine Amusement Gaming v. Angara , G.R. No. 142937, November 15, 2005, 475 S

A careful study of the facts and evidence reveals the following:

1. When the witness named Jan Go identified Job Hutt as the
shooter on January 7, 2014, the police did not proceed with
the technicalities of obtaining a warrant of arrest. Instead,
they arrested Job Hutt without a warrant the next day
January 8, 2014. The police officer also presented him to the
media in satisfaction of the demand and cry for justice that
was
circulating in the media of the ruthless murder of
Amy Dala.
It would be extremely pernicious to the interest of
justice if this case were dismissed due to the failure of the
police officers to observe the strict procedures prescribed by
our laws. Clearly the principle that technicality should not
defeat substantial justice.
In Aguam v. Court of Appeals, 388 Phil. 587 (2000), a
dismissal of appeals purely on technical grounds is frowned
upon where the policy of the court is to encourage hearings of
appeals on their merits and the rules of procedure ought not to
be applied in a very rigid, technical sense; rules of procedure
are used only to help secure, not override substantial justice. It
is a far better and more prudent course of action for the court to
excuse a technical lapse and afford the parties a review of the
case on appeal to attain the ends of justice rather than dispose
of the case on technicality and cause a grave injustice to the
parties, giving a false impression of speedy disposal of cases
while actually resulting in more delay, if not a miscarriage of
justice.
2. The prosecutor conducted a preliminary investigation while
the accused has no counsel.
Rule 117, section 3 provides:
The accused may move to quash the complaint or information
on any of the following grounds:
a. That the facts charged do not constitute an offense;
b. That the court trying the case has no jurisdiction over
the offense charged;
c. That the court trying the case has no jurisdiction over
the person of the accused;

d. That the officer who filed the information had no

authority to do so;
e. That it does not conform substantially to the prescribed
form;
f. That more that one offense is charged except when a
single punishment for various offenses is prescribed by
law;
g. That the criminal
extinguished;

action

or

liability

has

been

h. That it contains averments which, if true, would

constitute a legal excuse or justification; and
i. That the accused has been previously convicted or
acquitted of the offense
The above mentioned are the only circumstances for a
motion to quash. The irregularity of the preliminary investigation
insisted by the accused is not a ground for a motion to quash.
It was held in Pilapil v. Sandiganbayan, GR No. 101978,
that the Court bears mention of the rudimentary rule that the
absence of a preliminary investigation is not a ground to quash
a complaint or information under Section 3, Rule 117 of the
Rules of Court. The proper procedure in case of lack of
preliminary investigation is to hold in abeyance the proceedings
upon such information and the case remanded to the Office of
the Provincial Fiscal or the Ombudsman, for that matter, for him
or the Special Prosecutor to conduct
a
preliminary
investigation.
Thus, the irregularity of the preliminary investigation has
no bearing in a motion to quash and should be disregarded.

PRAYER
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, The People, respectfully prays to the
Honorable Court to deny the Motion to Quash the information for lack
of merit.
The People likewise respectfully pray for other just and
equitable relief.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED.
Cebu City, March 15, 2014
__________________________
Counsel of the Accused

SMEE GOLLY
PTR NO. 2544042; 1.31.2014; C.C
IBP OR. No. 95321; 1.11.2014; C.C.
Roll of Attorneys No. 33250
MCLE Compliance No. 0061059; April 2013
Email: smee_golly@gmail.com