Artiaga, Dayagbil and Partners Law Office

Wonderland Street
Cebu City
Telefax: 135789

To: Yvonne Artiaga, Supervising Attorney

From: Vanda Charissa Dayagbil, Associate Attorney
Date: February 23, 2017
Re: Mayor Job Hutt Case (non-filing of SALN) - Possible Dismissal on Ground on Speedy
Disposition of Cases

STATEMENT OF THE ASSIGNMENT

The scope of the assignment or the subject matter of this Law Office Memorandum is to discuss
the Possible Legal Defenses and Remedies that may be availed of by the Client Job Hutt against
the Criminal Case filed against him for Non-Filing of SALN in the years 2009-2010 by considering
the facts of the case, analyzing the applicable laws and jurisprudence on the matter.

The primary defense to be discussed is regarding the possible dismissal on the ground that
Mayor Job Hutt’s right to a speedy disposition of his case, a right afforded to us by virtue of the
Constitution which is the Supreme Law of the Land, has been violated.

KEY FACTS

Job Hutt was the mayor of Municipality X where he was first elected in 2007 and
has successfully served for three terms as mayor. Currently, Job Hutt is a private citizen.
Despite having served his terms, Job Hutt, unfortunately, has a pending case in the
Office of the Ombudsman. It was filed by a concerned citizen in 2010 against the mayor
for non-filing of his Statement of Assets, Liabilities, and Net Worth (SALN) in the years
2009 and 2010.

The Ombudsman-Visayas graft prosecutor conducted the preliminary investigation

and issued a resolution in 2011 charging Mayor Job Hutt with Violation of Section 8 in
relation to Section 11 of RA 6713 “Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public
Officials and Employees” for non-filing of SALN.

Mayor Job Hutt then, through his former counsel, filed a Motion for Reconsideration
to the Ombudsman-Visayas resolution. After review and approval by the Ombudsman
Central Office in 2016, just last year, Mayor Job Hutt’s motion for reconsideration was
eventually denied.

Mayor Job Hutt’s former counsel suffered a heart stroke and is now incapacitated
to represent the mayor. Hence, Mayor Job Hutt engaged in our services this January of
2017 when he has already been arraigned at one of the courts here in Cebu City. His
case is now at the stage of presentation of second witness for prosecution.

ISSUES
i. Whether or Not Mayor Job Hutt Can File a “Motion to Quash” on the Ground that the
Delay in the Ombudsman Preliminary Investigation Exceeded Reasonable Limits
Thereby Violating the Former’s Right to a Speedy Disposition of Cases

ii. Whether or Not the Motion to Quash Can Still be Raised After Arraignment

BRIEF ANSWERS

i. Yes, Mayor Job Hutt can file a motion to quash on the ground of his right to a speedy
disposition of cases has been violated. It took 5 years for the Ombudsman to settle
matters of the mayor’s case, thus, incurred in delay that has exceeded reasonable limits.
Although this ground is not among of those enlisted in Section 3 Rule 117 of the Rules
of Criminal Procedure, the right to a speedy disposition of cases is a Constitutional Right
and it has been appreciated by Jurisprudence further justifying the motion to quash.

ii. Yes, the motion to quash can still be filed even after arraignment. This case involves
a ground of loss of jurisdiction over the offense which constitutes the grant of filing a
motion to quash at any stage of the proceeding by virtue of Rule 117 and also in light of
jurisprudence.

ANALYSIS

Article XI of the 1987 Constitution

Section 17. All public officials and employees, whether regular or under temporary status,
are required to file a SALN.

R.A. 6713

Section 8. Statements and Disclosure. — Public officials and employees have an

obligation to accomplish and submit declarations under oath of, and the public has the
right to know, their assets, liabilities, net worth and financial and business interests
including those of their spouses and of unmarried children under eighteen (18) years of
age living in their households.

Section 11. Penalties. —Violations of Sections 7, 8 or 9 of this Act shall be punishable

with imprisonment not exceeding five (5) years, or a fine not exceeding five thousand
pesos (P5,000), or both, and, in the discretion of the court of competent jurisdiction,
disqualification to hold public office.

Rule 117 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure

Section 3. Grounds. – 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 than one offense is charged except when a single punishment for
various offenses is prescribed by law;

(g) That the criminal action or liability has been extinguished;

(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 charged,
or the case against him was dismissed or otherwise terminated without his express
consent.

i. Whether or Not Mayor Job Hutt Can File a “Motion to Quash” on the Ground that
the Delay in the Ombudsman preliminary Investigation Exceeded Reasonable
Limits Thereby Violating the Former’s Right to a Speedy Disposition of Cases:

Yes, Mayor Job Hutt can file a motion to quash on the ground of his right to a
speedy disposition of cases has been violated. It took 5 years for the Ombudsman to
settle matters of the mayor’s case, thus, incurred in delay that has exceeded reasonable
limits. Although this ground is not among of those enlisted in Section 3 Rule 117 of the
Rules of Criminal Procedure, the right to a speedy disposition of cases is a Constitutional
Right and it has been appreciated by Jurisprudence further justifying the motion to quash.

People of the Philippines vs Cezar Ramirez

The court merited the arguments propounded by the accused when the latter
averred: As to allegations of violation of the right to a speedy trial, the preliminary
investigation was irregular and violated accused’s constitutional right to a speedy
disposition of cases.
The court notes that violation of the right to a speedy disposition of cases is not
one of the grounds for a motion to quash. However, jurisprudence has taught us that
rules of procedure are mere tools designed to facilitate the attainment of justice.

Thus, “Liberal Construction of Rules” has been allowed in the following:

1. Where a rigid application will result in a manifest failure or miscarriage of justice,

especially if a party successfully shows that the alleged defect in the questioned final
and executory judgment is not apparent on its face or from the recitals contained
therein;

2. Where the interest of substantial justice will be served;

3. Where the resolution of the motion is addressed solely to the sound and judicious
discretion of the court; and

4. Where the injustice to the adverse party is not commensurate with the degree of his
thoughtlessness in not complying with the procedure prescribed.

“In this case, the strict and rigid application of Sec. 3 of Rule 117 will result in
manifest injustice because it is very clear that the right of the accused to a speedy
disposition of cases has been violated”.

Elpidio C. Cervantes vs Sandiganbayan

 The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Sandiganbayan denying the
motion to quash filed by Petitioner Cervantes. It ruled that Sandiganbayan gravely
abused its discretion in not quashing the information for violation of petitioner’s
constitutional right to a speedy disposition of the case in the level of the Special
Prosecutor. SC further stated that petitioner was deprived of his right to a speedy
disposition of the case, a right which is guaranteed by the constitution.

Enriquez vs Office of the Ombudsman

The cases filed against accused Enriquez in the Office of the Ombudsman were
ordered by the Supreme Court to be dismissed because of inaction of the ombudsman
to resolve the complaint which was pending for 6 years and was violative of the accused’s
right to a speedy disposition of cases.

The aforementioned cases, have a common ground with the instant case of Mayor
Job Hutt and that is, all cases mentioned involved a violation of the right to a speedy
disposition of cases which is guaranteed to us by the Constitution. Jurisprudence
provides, like those already mentioned, that this is a ground construed to be one which
allows the filing of a motion to quash.

When should a Motion for Reconsideration/Reinvestigation of the decision or

order issued by the Office of the Ombudsman be resolved?

The Hearing Officer shall resolve the Motion for Reconsideration/Reinvestigation

of the decision or order issued by the Office of the Ombudsman within five (5) days from
the date of submission for resolution.

With regards to the case of Mayor Job Hutt, the resolution of the case in which he
was charged with violation of Sec. 8 in relation to Sec. 11 of RA 6713 for non-filing of
SALN was issued in 2011. After which, the mayor filed his motion for reconsideration but
it took 5 years for the Hearing Officer to act on the motion for reconsideration and deny
it which happened only last year, 2016. The law directs the Hearing Officer to resolve
the Motion of Reconsideration of the decision issued by the Office of the Ombudsman
within 5 days from the date of submission.

Thus, there was a delay and the delay exceeded reasonable limits when the
resolution was issued 5 years later instead of “within 5 days from date of submission”.
Mayor Job Hutt was denied his Constitutional right to a speedy disposition of cases.

ii. Whether or Not the Motion to Quash Can Still be Raised After Arraignment:

Yes, the motion to quash can still be filed even after arraignment. This case
involves a ground of loss of jurisdiction over the offense which constitutes the grant of
filing motion to quash at any stage of the proceeding by virtue of Rule 117 and also in
light of jurisprudence.

Rule 117

By entering his plea before filing the motion to quash, the defendant waives
the formal objectives to the complaint or information.

But if the ground for the motion is any of the following below, there is no
waiver. The following grounds may be raised at any stage of the proceeding:
1. That the facts charged do not constitute an offense;

2. That the court trying the case has no jurisdiction over the offense charged;

3. That the criminal action or liability has been extinguished; and

4. That the accused has been previously convicted or acquitted of the offense charged,
or the case against him was dismissed or otherwise terminated without his express
consent

This case involves a ground of “loss of jurisdiction” over the offense falling under
number (2) of the given grounds of Rule 117 above in which filing a motion to quash after
arraignment does not tantamount to a “waiver” of the formal objectives to the complaint
or information. Hence, may be raised before or after arraignment. This is further justified
in the case of Tatad vs Sandiganbayan.

Tatad vs Sandiganbayan

Tatad filed with the Sandiganbayan a consolidated motion to quash the information on
the ground that, among others, "the prosecution deprived accused-movant of due
process of law and of the right to a speedy disposition of the cases filed against him,
amounting to loss of jurisdiction to file the informations.”

Ruling of the Court:

“Coming into the main point, the long delay in the termination of the preliminary
investigation by the Tanodbayan is violative of the constitutional right of the accused to
due process”.

“Not only under the broad umbrella of the due process clause, but under the
constitutional guarantee of "speedy disposition" of cases as embodied in Section 16 of
the Bill of Rights (both in the 1973 and 1987 Constitution), the inordinate delay is violative
of Tatad’s constitutional rights”.

“A delay of close to 3 years can not be deemed reasonable or justifiable in the light of
the circumstances obtaining in the present case”.

“After a careful review of the facts and circumstances of the case, the Court was
constrained to hold that the inordinate delay in terminating the preliminary investigation
and filing the information in the instant case is violative of the constitutionally guaranteed
right of Tatad to due process and to a speedy disposition of the cases against him. The
informations in the Criminal Cases should be dismissed”.

CONCLUSION

As citizens of the Philippines, we owe allegiance to the country forthwith we are

bound to follow its laws. These laws maintain the peace and order in the country to which
everyone of us must submit and obey. Failure to observe any of these laws will subject
a person to a respective sanction.

In the case at hand, Mayor Job Hutt failed to disclose his Statement of Assets,
Liabilities and Net Worth (SALN) in the years 2009 and 2010. Initially, he violated the law
particularly Sec. 8 in relation to Sec. 11 of RA 6713. But, although the mayor has
committed a violation of the law, he too has corresponding rights- rights of the accused,
guaranteed by the Constitution including the “right to a speedy disposition of cases”.

It must be emphasized that Mayor Job Hutt’s right to a speedy disposition of cases
has been violated when the preliminary investigation was resolved only 5 years later
which is a delay that is unreasonable, thus, grants him to file a motion to quash the
information filed against him.
In addition, the mayor can still push through with the motion to quash even after
arraignment because jurisprudence provides that if the right to a speedy disposition of
cases has been deprived, the court handling the same will lose its jurisdiction over the
offense and “loss/lack of jurisdiction of the offense” is one of the grounds when a motion
to quash can still be filed even after arraignment.

Therefore, Mayor Job Hutt has the right to file a Motion to Quash and he can still
raise it even though ha has already been arraigned. The information filed against him
should be dismissed.

Artiaga, Dayagbil and Partners Law Office

Wonderland Street
Cebu City
Telefax: 135789

February 23, 2017

Mister Job Hutt

Tomorrowland St.
Cebu City

Re: Tenability of Motion to Quash and Whether it Can Still be Raised After Arraignment

Dear Job Hutt:

I am writing on behalf of Wonderland Law Office. We appreciate your efforts in bringing

to us your concern regarding the case you are charged with. This letter will inform you of
your chances of acquittal or conviction in the Criminal Case of Failure to File SALN in
the years 2009 and 2010 that you are facing. Likewise, this letter will also explain to you
the tenability of your motion to quash and whether it can still be raised after arraignment.

The facts as we know are as written below. Please let us know if there is anything we
miss.

FACTS

You were the mayor of Municipality X and you had been first elected as mayor in 2007.
You are currently a private citizen after you had successfully served three terms as
mayor. Unfortunately, you have a pending Ombudsman case filed by a concerned citizen
before the Ombudsman in 2010 against you for non-filing of your SALN in the years 2009
and 2010.

The Ombudsman-Visayas Graft Prosecutor conducted the preliminary investigation and

issued a resolution in 2011 charging you with Violation of Section 8 in Relation to Section
11 of RA 6713 for Non-Filing of SALN. You the filed a Motion for Reconsideration,
through your former counsel, to the Ombudsman-Visayas resolution. However, your
motion for reconsideration was denied only after 5 years has passed, which was issued
only last year, 2016.

The following year, January 2017, you engaged in our services because your former
counsel suffered a heart stroke and now incapacitated to represent you. When you ask
for our services, that’s the time when you had already been arraigned at one of the courts
in Cebu City and your case is now at the stage of presentation of second witness for the
prosecution.

ANSWER

To address the issue on whether or not you can file a motion to quash, the answer is
yes, you can on the ground that your right to a speedy disposition of cases has been
violated. It took 5 years for the Ombudsman to settle matters of your case, thus, incurred
in delay that has exceeded reasonable limits. Your right to a speedy disposition of your
case is a right guaranteed by the Constitution. To treat the issue on whether or not the
motion to quash can still be raised after arraignment, the answer is yes, you can on the
ground that the court trying your case has lost its jurisdiction over the offense because it
incurred in delay that is unreasonable.

EXPLANATION

The right to a speedy disposition of cases is a Constitutional Right vested to us by the

Supreme Law of the Land. To deprive you of such right will serve as ground for you to
quash the information filed against you and this is provided by Jurisprudence like in the
case People of the Philippines vs Cezar Ramirez where the court notes that violation of
the right to a speedy disposition of cases is not one of the grounds for a motion to quash
but rules of procedure are mere tools designed to facilitate the attainment of justice.
Thus, “Liberal Construction of Rules” has been allowed in this case for the strict and rigid
application of Sec. 3 of Rule 117 will result in manifest injustice because it is very clear
that the right of the accused to a speedy disposition of cases has been violated.

When there is an unreasonable delay the information filed against you can be quashed
and if the ground to quash on which it is based is that there has been deprivation of the
right to a speedy disposition of cases, the court trying your case loses its jurisdiction over
the offense. When the ground is that of loss/lack of jurisdiction over the offense, it does
not matter whether the motion to quash be filed before entering plea for this can still be
filed even after arraignment. This has been explained in the case of Tatad vs
Sandiganbayan where the court dismissed the criminal informations filed against Tatad
on the ground that the prosecution deprived accused-movant of due process of law and
of the right to a speedy disposition of the cases filed against him, amounting to loss of
jurisdiction to file the informations. Rule 117 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure enlisted
the grounds on when to file a motion to quash and it treats loss of jurisdiction over the
offense to be one among the grounds when motion to quash can still be filed after
arraignment.

CONCLUSION

Your chances to push through with your motion to quash are high. We are confident that
your petition will be granted. This is because you cannot be deprived of your right to have
a speedy disposition of your case guaranteed by the highest law of the land. 5 years
delay cannot be deemed reasonable or justifiable in the light of the circumstances
obtaining in the present case. The Ombudsman’s delay has exceeded reasonable limits.
Furthermore, the court trying your case has lost its jurisdiction over the offense. Hence,
it is just that the information filed against you be dismissed.

We highly encourage you to please contact us at Telefax: 135789 or come to our office
at Artiaga, Dayagbil and Partners Law Office, Wonderland Street, Cebu City as soon as
possible for us to discuss more your case and find out other arguments that you may
avail of to defend your case.

Sincerely Yours,
Vanda Charissa T. Dayagbil
Associate Attorney