Professional Documents
Culture Documents
JOB HUTT,
Accused
x------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------///
MOTION TO QUASH
(Accused) Job Hutt, through counsel, and unto this Honorable Court, most
humbly and respectfully files this Motion to Quash and states that:
STATEMENT OF FACTS
Job Hutt, our client, was first elected as Mayor in Municipality X IN 2007
and now a private citizen after serving for three terms as Mayor. He is charged by
the Ombudsman-Visayas Graft Prosecutor with a violation of Section 8 in relation
to Section 11 of RA 6713 for non-filing of his SALN in the years 2009 and 2010.
Mayor Job Hutt then, through his former counsel, filed a motion for
reconsideration to the Ombudsman-Visayas resolution and was eventually denied,
after review and approval by the Ombudsman Central Office only last year, 2016.
Mayor Job Hutt has already been arraigned at one of the courts in Cebu City
when he engaged our services on January 2017. His former counsel has suffered a
heart stroke and now incapacitated to represent the mayor.
Mayor Job Hutts case is now at the stage of presentation of second witness for the
prosecution.
ISSUES
The amount of time that passed since the filing of the complaint proves
prejudicial to my client. These substantive points taken together already warrant
the dismissal of the case.
Looking at the time and date which have passed, it is obviously shown that
the Ombudsman acted with unlawful delay for having 6 years lapsed before its
denial in the Ombudsman review and approval.
We certainly believed that the Ombudsman failed to prove and explain these
certain causes in the Delay of the case at bar which exceeded its reasonable limits:
It has been said that justice delayed is justice denied and oftentimes, this
maxim has proven to be true in the Philippine justice system. Our laws do have
safeguards to ensure the prompt and speedy action on all types of legal actions and
cases. The Constitution mandates dispatch not only in the trial stage but also in the
disposition thereof, warranting dismissals in case of violations thereof without the
fault of the party concerned, not just the accused.
The right to a speedy disposition of a case, like the right to speedy trial, is
deemed violated only when the proceeding is attended by vexatious, capricious,
and oppressive delays; or when unjustified postponements of trial are asked for and
secured, or when without cause or justifiable motive a long period of time is
allowed to elapse without the party having his case tried. Equally applicable is the
balancing test used to determine whether a defendant has been denied his right to a
speedy trial, or a speedy disposition of a case for that matter, in which the conduct
of both the prosecution and the defendant are weighed, and such factors as length
of the delay, reason for the delay, reason for the delay, the defendants assertion or
non-assertion of his right, and prejudice to the defendant resulting from the delay,
are considered. Our clients case is currently at the stage of presentation of second
witness for the prosecution therefore it is required to have appropriate action for
our clients favor.
PRAYER
Hob Hutt likewise respectfully prays for other just and equitable relief.