Professional Documents
Culture Documents
MOTION TO QUASH
AND
OPPOSITON TO MOTION TO QUASH
By
ABOCOT, DARYL - JD
ESPARTERO, RUTH - LLB
EH-306
JOB HUTT
Accused
X----------------------------------------------------------------------------///
ISSUES
I: Under Article 16 of the Bill of Rights, speedy disposition of
cases, will Councilor Job Hutt’s motion to quash prosper on ground
that there was a violation to his constitutional right because the
Ombudsman’s preliminary investigation exceeds reasonable limits?
ARGUMENTS
Issue I
Violation to the constitutional right of the accused on speedy
disposition of cases
1
Coscolluela v. Sanbiganbayan (First Division) and People of the Philippines, G.R.
No. 191411, 15 July 2013.
mathematical concept. The right to speedy disposition of cases
should be understood to be a relative or flexible concept such that a
mere mathematical reckoning of the time involved would not be
sufficient. Indeed, the defense agrees that a mere mathematical
reckoning is not sufficient to determine whether there is inordinate
delay in the preliminary investigation. The Court must therefore
consider the nature of the case and the manner or how the
preliminary investigation was conducted.
2
People of the Philippines v. Hon. Sandiganbayan, First Division, et al., G.R. No. 188165, 11 December
2013.
The delay in the Ombudsman’s resolution of the case of
Councilor Job Hutt largely remains unjustified. As to the
prosecution’s averment that the period of almost five years to conduct
the preliminary investigation was a reasonable time for the Office of
the Ombudsman to study, review and finalize its findings, after the
filing of a motion for consideration by of the accused is untenable.
Issue II
Motion to Quash can still be raised even after arraignment
In the case of People vs. Ramirez 4, 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.
3
Coscolluela v. Sandiganbayan
4
People vs. Ramirez
speedy disposition of the case charged against him. If Section 3, Rule
117 is to be applied in its strict and rigid sense, then it will result to
a certain degree of injustice.
(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;
(f) That more than one offense is charged except when a single
punishment for various offenses is prescribed by law;
5
Section 9 and Section 3 of Rule 117 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure
(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.
PRAYER
Arya Stark
Counsel for the Accused
Lord Val and Associates Law Office
Telefax: 531- 8889
PTR No. 65872653
IBP No. 113344550
Roll of Attorneys No. 0376344
MCLE Compliance No. 716255