Republic of the Philippines

Second Judicial Region

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
Branch 36
Santiago City
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,
Plaintiff,
-VERSUS-

Criminal Case No. Br. 36-110

For:

RAPE

KENNISON NIONES,
Accused.
x---------------------------------------x
OPPOSITION TO DEFENSE MOTION TO QUASH
The prosecution through counsel submits this opposition to defense
motion to quash information, and argues as follows:
PREPARATORY STATEMENT
Rape is one of the most emotionally-charged words in the
English vocabulary. It describes an act, which incidentally is also
defined as a felony, which betrays a fundamental lack of regard
for the offended partys humanity and dignity. More than an act
rooted in sexual gratification, rape is considered a violation of the
essential dignity of a person regardless of gender.1
Rape is a crime that evokes global condemnation because
it is abhorrence to a woman's value and dignity as a human
being. It respects no time, place, age, physical condition or social
status. It can happen anywhere and it can happen to anyone.2
Women, who are raped, as shown in the present case,
suffer a sense of violation that goes beyond physical injury. They
may become distrustful of men and experience feelings of
shame, humiliation, and loss of privacy. Victims who suffer rape
trauma syndrome experience physical symptoms such as
headaches, sleep disturbances, and fatigue. They may also
develop psychological disturbances related to the circumstances
of the rape, such as intense fears.3
Accused committed rape in violation of Article 335 of the
Revised Penal Code (RPC), as amended by Republic Act (R.A.) No.
8353 or the Anti-Rape Law of 1997. The accused should be

1 Legal reference on capital offenses - Volume I: Rape by Attorney Theodore O. Te

2 People of the Philippines vs. Edgar Jumawan G.R. No. 187495, April 21, 2014.

3 Microsoft Encarta 2009. 1993-2008 Microsoft Corporation.

convicted to serve as an example for public good and in order to

deter a similar act.
WHO IS GENEVIEVE G. PASTOR?
The victim, GENEVIEVE G. PASTOR is of 20 years of age, Filipino
and a resident of Purok 3, Nagassican, Santiago City. She is a caring
and a lovable child to her parents and siblings, full of dreams and
ambitions. She is a descent woman, having a good reputation in their
Barangay. Even, shes beautiful; she has no boyfriend and never
entertained suitors because her priority is her family.
She is the eldest child in their family and at early age she
became the breadwinner. In fact, before she was rape, she is working,
at Mabini Massage Parlor as Guest Relation Officer. Despite of poverty
she was reared in a family that valued human dignity and preserve
virginity until marriage.
She never knows the accused and has no ill motive to impute
him for raping her nor make any false accusation against the accused.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
The accused clearly violated Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code
(RPC), as amended by Republic Act (R.A.) No. 8353 or the Anti-Rape Law of
1997. The crime of Rape was committed as follows:
That on or about 7:00 oclock in the evening of June 10,
2015, in the City of Santiago, Philippines and within the
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named
accused, with lewd design, did then and there willfully,
unlawfully and feloniously, had carnal knowledge of one Alice
Catalon against her will by means of force, violence,
intimidation and threat. The victim after leaving, at Mabini
Massage Parlor where she works as GRO, for, 2 years got a
tricycle drove by the accused. While on board on her way
home to Nagassiccan, Santiago City, accused poked a
motorcycle tool at her and brought her to a grassy area near a
river where there is no light. Then, the accused told her to
undress and laid her on the ground. The accused went on top
of her and removed her underwear, inserted his penis into her
vagina and pumped on her. Thereafter, the accused escaped
using his tricycle.4
ARGUMENT
THE COURT HAS JURISDICTION OVER
THE PERSON OF THE ACCUSED
In the motion to quash, the defense argues that the court has no
jurisdiction over the person of the accused because of the illegality his of
4 Information filed dated June 26, 2015

arrest. Contrary to the said allegation, the prosecution believes otherwise.

The court clearly has jurisdiction over the person of the accused. It obtain
jurisdiction over the person of the accused after the said accused was
arrested by virtue of a warrant of arrest issued against him by Hon. Judge
Anastacio Anghad of Regional Trial Court, Branch 36, Santiago City on June 5,
2015. A copy of the said Warrant of Arrest is attached herewith as Annex A.
It was directed to and executed by Senior Police Officer 2 Reo Nes and
Senior Police Officer 1 Archie Cayaban of Police Station 1, Santiago City. On
June 11, 2015, the accused after he was informed of his right and the nature
and cause of his arrest, he was successfully arrested in his residence at
Calao East Santiago City. Thereafter, the accused was immediately turnover
by the arresting officer to the proper authority.
The issuance of the warrant of arrest complied with the provisions of
Section 2, Article III of the 1987 Philippine Constitution. Section 2, Article III
of the 1987 Philippine Constitution provides that:
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 a judge, after examination under oath or
affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may
produce, particularly describing the place to be searched,
or the persons or things to the seized.
The warrant of arrest was issued on the existence of probable cause
determine personally by the judge after personal examination under oath or
affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce in the form
of searching questions and answers, in writing and under oath.5
Based on the above statements the accused was arrested by virtue of
a lawfully issued warrant of arrest and not warrantless arrest as claimed by
the defense counsel of the accused.
However, even if the accused were illegally arrested, such arrest does
not invest eye-witness accounts with constitutional infirmity as fruits of the
poisonous tree; thus, where the conviction could be secured on the strength
of testimonial evidence given in open court, the illegality of the arrest cannot
be invoked to reverse the conviction6.
Furthermore, the filing of charges and the issuance of the warrant of
arrest against a person invalidly detained will cure the defect of that
detention, or at least deny him the right to be released 7. What constitutes a
reasonable or unreasonable arrest in any particular case is purely a judicial
question, determinable from a consideration of the circumstances involved.
5 Rule 126, Sec. 6, Rules of Court
6 People v. Salazar, G.R. No. 99355, August 11, 1997
7 Francisco Juan Larranaga v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 130644, March 13, 1998

The illegality of arrest is not sufficient ground for motion to quash and to
deny justice to victims of crime.
THE OFFICER WHO FILLED THE INFORMATION
HAD AUTHORITY TO DO SO
The second ground presented by the defense counsel for the quashing
of information shows that they were desperate.
Hon. Reynaldo M. Esmeralda is not a private prosecutor as alleged by
the defense counsel but rather a public prosecutor. In fact, he was appointed
as city prosecutor on March 8. 2010. In fact such authority is respected by
the defense lawyer in the first page of their motion to quash addressing the
latter as a city prosecutor. A copy of the said appointment is attached
herewith as Annex B.
Therefore there is no patent defect in the information so as to render it
invalid and renders the court acquires jurisdiction to try the accused thereon.
Moreover, the doctrine lay down by Supreme Court in the case of Villa vs.
Ibanez, etc. 88 Phil 402, as claimed by the defense is not applicable in the
present case since the information was filed by a qualified and authorized
officer.
However, assuming arguendo, that Hon. Reynaldo M. Esmeralda is a
private prosecutor, still it is allowed under the rules of court under...
Section 5. Who must prosecute criminal action. - All criminal
actions either commenced by complaint or by information shall
be prosecuted under the direction and control of a public
prosecutor. In case of heavy work schedule of the public
prosecutor or in the event of lack of public prosecutors,
the private prosecutor may be authorized in writing by
the Chief of the Prosecution Office or the Regional State
Prosecutor to prosecute the case subject to the approval
of the court. Once so authorized to prosecute the criminal
action, the private prosecutor shall continue to prosecute the
case up to end of the trial even in the absence of a public
prosecutor, unless the authority is revoked or otherwise
withdrawn.8
NON-PREJUDICIAL FORMAL DEFECTS WILL NOT BE SUSTAINED
AS A GROUND FOR QUASHING THE INFORMATION.
The formal parts of a complaint or information are provided for in Section 5
to 12 of Rule 110 of Rules of Criminal Procedure. It is object of a complaint or
information to enable a man of common understanding to know what
offenses he is charged of. An information which sets forth the names of the
defendant and the offended parties, designates the crime charged and
relates the acts complained of as constituting the crime in ordinary and
concise language and states the offense was committed within the
jurisdiction of the court is sufficient.9
8 Section 5, Rule 110 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure as amended by
A.M. NO. 02-2-07-SC (Effective May 01, 2002)

And mere defects in form or those which do not tend to prejudiced a

substantial right of the accused will not invalidate a judgment. So, a motion
to dismiss a complaint or information in a criminal case will not be sustained
when the facts therein are set out in such a manner that a person of
common understanding may know with what he is charged, It is sufficient if
the complaint or information states the essential elements which constitute
the offense required in the statute and it is not necessary to follow the exact
language of the statute.10
If such defects are properly and opportunely raised, an amendment of
the compliant or information may be ordered by the court under Section 4,
Rule 1I7.
Since all the allegations of the defense are non-prejudicial formal
defects, therefore it will not sustain as a ground for quashing the information.
Furthermore, the defense overlooked the certification attached to the
information.
PRAYER
Wherefore, considering the manifest legality of the arrest giving the
court jurisdiction over the person of the accused, the undoubted authority of
the city prosecutor, and the non-prejudicial formal defects, which cannot
sustain as a ground for quashing the information. It is respectfully prayed
that the information for rape filed against the accused should not be
quashed.
July 3, 2015

HON. REYNALDO M. ESMERALDA

City Prosecutor
Roll No. 78201/ April 25, 2007
MCLE Compliance No. V-9016892
Santiago City, Philippines

COPY FURNISHED:
THE CLERK OF COURT
SECOND JUDICIAL REGION
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT-BRANCH 36

9 US vs. Legaspi, 14 Phil. 38

10 US vs. Go Chanco, 23 Phil. 64

THE ACCUSED/ DEFENSE

COUNSEL