REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT

7TH JUDICIAL REGION
BRANCH 666
CEBU CITY

PEOPLE OF TH PHILLIPINES,
Plaintiff
Criminal Case No. 12345
---versus---

For: Murder

JOB HUTT
Accused
X----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------///
MOTION TO QUASH THE VALIDITY OF THE ARREST AND
REGULARITY OF PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION WITHOUT
ACCUSED HAVING COUNSEL
(Accused) Job Hutt (Hutt) through counsel, and unto this
Honorable Court, most humbly and respectfully files this Motion to
Quash and states that:
PREFATORY
It is but a duty of public officers to follow the orderly
processes required by the Constitution when in making arrests.
Republic Act no. 7438 gives value the dignity of every human
being and guarantee full respect for human rights. That it is in this law
that provides for the rights of those accused of a crime or detained.
In Section 2 it provides that:
Rights of person Arrested, Detained or under Custodial
Investigation; Duties of Public Officers(a) Any person arrested, detained or under custodial
investigation shall at all times be assisted by counsel.
(b) Any public officer or employee, or anyone acting under his
order or his place, who arrests, detained or investigates any
person for the commission of an offense shall inform the latter,
in language known to or understood by him, of his rights to
remain silent and to have competent and independent counsel,
preferably of his own choice, who shall at all times be allowed

to confer privately with the person arrested, detained or under

custodial investigation. If such person cannot afford the
services of his own counsel, he must be provided with a
competent and independent counsel by the investigating officer.
It is our duty and most especially of the Court to shield the
innocent from senseless suits right from the start. To avoid the
stresses and humiliation of criminal trial and tarnish ones good
reputation from unfounded charges.
WHO IS JOB HUTT?
1. JOB HUTT is a hardworking, self-sufficient and loving person.
He is currently employed in YOUVE GOT MAIL as a
messenger as well as a part-time student of TESDA for a
vocational course on welding.
2. He is an only child of Mrs. Hutt, a single mother who works as a
secretary to the Barangay captain of their town.
3. Though he is a very shy person, He is an active member of
their church, Holy Family. He joins feeding programs;
fundraisers and other out reach programs organized by their
church.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
On January 8, 2014 the police arrested Job Hutt without
warrant of arrest. The day before the arrest, January 7, 2014 at the
police office, a witness named Jan Go identified Job Hutt as Amy
Dalas shooter. Jan Go identified Job Hutt among five photographs of
male persons that the police showed him.
The following day, January 8, 2014 acting on the information
supplied by Jan Go the police arrested Job Hutt in his residence while
eating. Right after Job Hutts arrest, the police presented him to the
media as the suspect of Amy Dalas murderer. On the same day of
the arrest, the police filed a criminal complaint for murder against Job
Hutt with the prosecutors office. Job Hutt signed a waiver of his
arrest while the office of the prosecutor conducted a preliminary
investigation.
On February 3, 2014 the office of the prosecutor file a case of
murder against Job Hutt.
Job Hutt was not able to submit evidence during the preliminary
interview because he was without counsel then.

ISSUES
1. The arrest of Job Hutt without a warrant under circumstances
that do not justify a warrantless arrest renders this proceeding
void.
2. The preliminary investigation conducted in this case is in
serious violation of the constitutional right of due process of the
accused, Job Hutt.

ARGUMENTS
THE ARREST WITHOUT WARRANT OF JOB HUTT DOES NOT
FALL IN ANY OF THE PROVISION IN THE RULES OF COURT,
RULE 113 AS STATED:
Sec. 5. Arrest without warrant; when lawful. 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 is temporarily confined while his
case is pending, or has escaped while being transferred
from one confinement to another.
Where in letter a, the arresting officer was not at the crime
scene during the alleged murder of Amy Dala last January 5, 2014.
And based on the facts the crime was committed on said date while
the unlawful arrest was on January 8, 2014. He could not have been
there to attest that Job Hutt was the person who murder Amy Dala,
which does not give him the right to arrest him the next day without,
warrant.
In letter b, the arresting officer has no personal knowledge of
the facts that Job Hutt committed the crime. He was not present
during the commission of crime and only knew of Job Hutt when a
witness identified Hutt as the murderer. One cannot be justified on the
belief that a person committed the crime because of one witness. And
in fact the identification by the prosecution witness was attended with
irregularity considering that Job Hutt was identified merely from
among the five photographs presented by the police officers. This

manner of identification is suggestive and cannot be the basis alone

in a criminal prosecution.
While definitely in letter c Job Hutt is not an escaped prisoner.
Further, Section 2 of the Republic Act no. 7438 provides that:
Rights of person Arrested, Detained or under Custodial Investigation;
Duties of Public Officers(a) Any person arrested, detained or under custodial
investigation shall at all times be assisted by counsel.
(b) Any public officer or employee, or anyone acting under
his order or his place, who arrests, detained or investigates
any person for the commission of an offense shall inform the
latter, in language known to or understood by him, of his
rights to remain silent and to have competent and
independent counsel, preferably of his own choice, who shall
at all times be allowed to confer privately with the person
arrested, detained or under custodial investigation. If such
person cannot afford the services of his own counsel, he
must be provided with a competent and independent counsel
by the investigating officer.
Job Hutt was not informed of the charge instead was
presented to the media as the suspect of Amy Dalas murder.
In the landmark case of Miranda v Arizona:
Miranda Doctrine applies from the moment Job Hutt was
arrested last January 8, 2014. He was not informed of his rights and
to have competent and independent counsel. Which indicates a
violation of such right.
The right to remain silent or the right to have counsel may be
waived but Miranda Rights can never be waived. Therefore the
waiver signed by Job Hutt of his arrest does not mean he waives his
rights to be informed of the charges upon him.
JOB HUTT WAS DENIED THE RIGHT OF PRELIMINARY
INVESTIGATION PRIOR COMPLAINT WAS FILED.
One component of procedural due process is the right to
preliminary investigation, a procedure enshrined in Rule 112 of the
Rules of Court, to wit:
Except as provided in Section 7 of this Rule, a preliminary
investigation is required to be conducted before the filling of a
compliant or information for an offense where the penalty prescribed
by law is at least four (4) years, two (2) months and one (1) day
without regard to the fine.

Here, Job Hutt upon unlawful arrest was then filed a criminal
complaint for the murder of Amy Dala while the preliminary
investigation conducted by the prosecutors office was done at the
same time. Though there is an exception that a preliminary
investigation is not required as in sec. 7 of Rule 112 of the Rules of
Court:
When accused lawfully arrested without warrant. When a
person lawfully arrested without warrant involving an offense
which requires a preliminary investigation, the complaint or
information may be filed by a prosecutor without need of such
investigation
But this exception does not apply in this case since the arrest
without warrant was unlawful; therefore there is need of preliminary
investigation before one can file a criminal complaint.
As Justice Ynares-Santiago put it in Sales v. Sandiganbayan:
While the right to preliminary investigation is a statutory rather
than constitutional in its fundament, it is a component part of due
process in criminal justice. The right to have a preliminary
investigation conducted before being bound over to trial for criminal
offense and hence formally at risk of incarceration or some other
penalty is not a mere formal or technical right; it is substantive right.
To deny the accuseds claim to a preliminary investigation would be to
deprive him of the full measure of his right to due process.
There is a big difference in doing it the preliminary investigation
before the complaint and in doing both at the same time.
The purpose of a preliminary investigation is to secure the
innocent against hasty or oppressive prosecution and to protect him
from an open and public accusation of a crime. What was done here
in this case is of the opposite; instead Job Hutt was presented to the
media as the suspect before a preliminary investigation was
conducted.
And in Sec 12, Art 111 of the 1987 Constitution
Any person under investigation for the commission of an
offense shall have the right to be informed of his rights to
remain silent and to have competent and independent counsel
preferably of his own choice. If the person cannot afford the
services of counsel, he must be provided with one. These rights
cannot be waived except in writing and in the presence of
counsel.
In the same day of Job Hutts arrest preliminary investigation
was conducted without being notified of his rights. It proceeded
without him having counsel.

The preliminary investigation done in this case is in serious

violation of the constitutional right of due process. Therefore the
proceedings of this case are null and void.
Sec 1 of Article 111 of the 1987 Constitution provides, to wit:
No person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without
due process of the law xxxxxx
Further, sec 14(1) of the same article states that:
No person shall be held to answer for a criminal offense
without due process of the law.
As clearly provided by the above-cited provision, the
investigating officer failed to inform Job Hutt of his rights and to
provide him with a competent and independent counsel. He was not
accorded the right to be informed of the criminal complaint against
him.
The Supreme Court in a long line of case has upheld accuseds
right to due process and one these is in Cruz, Jr. vs People:
This procedure in section 3, rule 112 of the rules of Criminal
Procedure is to be observed in order to assure that a person
undergoing such preliminary investigation will be afforded due
process.

PRAYER
WHEREFORE, (Accused) Job Hutt respectfully prays to the
Honorable Court to quash the Information and to dismiss the criminal
charge against him.
Other forms of relief that are just and equitable under the
premises are prayed for.
Cebu City, March 15, 2014

_________________________
Counsel for the Accused
Karina Marie T. Pepito

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
7TH JUDICIAL REGION
BRANCH 666
CEBU CITY

PEOPLE OF TH PHILLIPINES,
Plaintiff
Criminal Case No. 12345
---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 submit this
Memorandum of Law in opposition to Job Hutts Motion to Quash the
validity of his arrest and regularity of the preliminary investigation
without having counsel.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
On January 8, 2014 the police arrested Job Hutt without
warrant of arrest. The day before the arrest, January 7, 2014 at the
police office, a witness named Jan Go identified Job Hutt as Amy
Dalas shooter. Jan Go identified Job Hutt among five photographs of
male persons that the police showed him.
The following day, January 8, 2014 acting on the information
supplied by Jan Go the police arrested Job Hutt in his residence while
eating. Right after Job Hutts arrest, the police presented him to the
media as the suspect of Amy Dalas murderer. On the same day of
the arrest, the police filed a criminal complaint for murder against Job
Hutt with the prosecutors office. Job Hutt signed a waiver of his
arrest while the office of the prosecutor conducted a preliminary
investigation.
On February 3, 2014 the office of the prosecutor file a case of
murder against Job Hutt.

On 7 March 2014, the counsel of accused Job Hutt filed a

Motion to Quash challenging the validity of the arrest and the
preliminary investigation proceeding.
ISSUES
1. The arrest of Job Hutt without a warrant under circumstances
that do not justify a warrantless arrest renders this proceeding
void.
2. The preliminary investigation conducted in this case is in
serious violation of the constitutional right of due process of the
accused, Job Hutt
ARGUMENTS
THE ARREST OF JOB HUTT WITHOUT WARRANT IS JUSTIFIED.
Under Sec. 5, Rule 113 of the Revised Rules on Criminal
Procedure
A lawful arrest without a warrant may be made by a peace officer or a
private individual under any of the following circumstances:
Sec. 5. Arrest without warrant; when lawful. 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 is temporarily confined while his
case is pending, or has escaped while being transferred
from one confinement to another.
In cases falling under paragraphs (a) and (b) hereof, the person
arrested without a warrant shall be forthwith delivered to the nearest
police station or jail and he shall be proceeded against in accordance
with Section 7, Rule 112.
Moreover, in previous cases such as People v. Tonog, Jr. and
Posadas v. Ombudsman that personal knowledge of such facts
may be gained by the officer during the course of his investigation.
Quoting Tonog Jr.:

It may be that the police officers were not armed with a warrant
when they apprehended accused appelant. The warrantless arrest,
however, was justified under Section 5 (b), Rule 113 of the 1985
Rules of Criminal Procedure providing that a peace officer may,
without a warrant, arrest a person when an offense has in fact just
been committed and he has personal knowledge of facts indicating
that the person to be arrested has committed it.
Thus, Hot Pursuit Arrests or those lawful arrests contemplate by
Rule 113, Sec. 5(B), as Justice Panganiban stated in his concurring
opinion in People v. Florencia Doria:
While the law enforcers may not actually witness the
execution of acts constituting the offense, they must have direct
knowledge or view of the crime right after its commission. They
should know for a fact that a crime was committed. And they must
also perceive acts exhibited by the person to be arrested, indicating
that he perpetrated the crime. Again, mere intelligence information
that the suspect committed the crime will not suffice. The arresting
officers themselves must have personal knowledge of facts showing
that the suspect performed the criminal act. Personal knowledge
means actual belief or reasonable grounds of suspicion, based on
actual facts, that the person to be arrested is probably guilty of
committing the crime.
From the facts of the case, the arresting officers knew that a crime
was committed. It was two days of investigation after the murder of
Amy Dala when a witness named Jan Go identified Job Hutt among
five photographs presented to him by the police. And with that instant
the personal knowledge gain through the course of the investigation
gave reasonable grounds on the arresting officers to believe that a
crime have been committed.
In People v. Pineda, the Court explained the rules in proper photographic
identification procedure, to wit:
The first rule in proper photographic identification
procedure is that a series of photographs must be shown,
and not merely that of the suspect. The second rule directs
that when a witness is shown a group of pictures, their
arrangement and display should in no way suggest which
one of the pictures pertains to the suspect.
In the case of People v. Burgos, it was held that:
The fact of the commission of the offense must be undisputed.
The test of reasonable ground applies only to the identity of the
perpetrator.

THE PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION CONDUCTED IN THIS CASE

WAS REGULAR AND ACCUSED WAS DULY NOTIFIED OF THE
PROCEEDINGS.
Rule 112 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure states:
Sec. 3. Procedure The preliminary investigation shall be conducted
in the following manner:
(a) The complaint shall state the address of the respondent and
shall be
accompanied by the affidavits of the complainant and his
witnesses, as well as other supporting documents to
establish probable cause. They shall be in such number of
copies as there are respondents, plus two (2) copies for the
official file. The affidavits shall be subscribed and sworn to
before any prosecutor or government official authorized
to administer oath, or, in their absence or unavailability, before
a notary public, each of whom must certify that he personally
examined the affiants and that he is satisfied that they
voluntarily executed and understood their affidavits.
(b) Within ten (10) days after the filing of the complaint, the
investigating officer shall either dismiss it if he finds
no ground to continue with the investigation, or issue a
subpoena to the respondent attaching to it a copy of the
complaint and its supporting affidavits and documents.
The respondent shall have the right to examine the evidence
submitted by the complainant, which he may not have been
furnished, and to copy them at his expense. If the evidence is
voluminous, the complainant may be required to specify those,
which he intends to present against the respondent, and these
shall be made available for examination or copying by the
respondent at his expense.
In the case at bar the accused was notified of the complaint.
The progress of this case was well on time especially since the
preliminary investigation started right away after his arrest. Job Hutt
was given ample time to file in his affidavit and supporting documents
and evidences.
Further, Preliminary investigation is not required in cases of lawful
warrantless arrest. As stated above the arrest without warrant
therefore preliminary investigation was done together with the
criminal complaint filed by the police.
Sec. 7, Rule 112 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure states:
When accused lawfully arrested without warrant. When a
person is lawfully arrested without a warrant involving an

offense, which requires a preliminary investigation, the

complaint or information may be filed by a prosecutor without
need of such investigation provided an inquest has been
conducted in accordance with existing rules. In the absence or
unavailability of an inquest prosecutor, the complaint may be
filed by the offended party or a peace officer directly with the
proper court on the basis of the affidavit of the offended party or
arresting officer or person.
Before the complaint or information is filed, the person arrested
may ask for a preliminary investigation in accordance with this
Rule, but he must sign a waiver of the provision of Article 125 of
the Revised Penal Code, as amended, in the presence of his
counsel. Notwithstanding the waiver, he may apply for bail and
the investigation must be terminated within fifteen (15) days
from its inception.

PRAYER
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs, The People, respectfully pray to
the Honorable Court to deny the Motion to Quash for lack of
merit.
The people likewise respectfully pray for other just and
equitable relief.
Cebu City, March 15, 2014

_____________________
Counsel for the Plaintiff
Karina Marie T. Pepito