Motion to Quash Sample

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES REGIONAL TRIAL COURT NATIONAL CAPITAL JUDICIAL REGION BRANCH 50 QUEZON CITY PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaint iff, CRIMINAL CASE No. Q-10-56789 Violation of Section 5, Article II Republic Act No. 9165 (Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002)

- versus – ROBIN LOPEZ PADILLA, Accused

x--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- x MOTION TO QUASH INFORMATION Accused Robin L. Padilla, by counsel, respectfully moves for the quashal of the Information dated 20 August 2010 issued by Assistant City Prosecutor Willie E. Revillame on the following ground: PREFATORY STATEMENT Commenting on the possible abuses that are prone to occur in a buy-bust operation the Supreme Court held in the case of People vs. Ambih: ―While buy-bust operation is a recognized means of entrapment for the apprehension of drug pushers, it does not always commend itself as the most reliable way to go after violators of the Dangerous Drugs Act as it is susceptible to mistake as well as to harassment, extortion and abuse.‖Accused is no drug pusher. The only reason he is now in the custody of the police is because he was illegally arrested for reason she still cannot comprehend. Accused thus respectfully moves for the Quashal of the Information dated 20 August 2010 issued by Assistant City Prosecutor Willie E. Revillame, on the following ground: THE COURT DID NOT ACQUIRE JURISDICTION OVER THE PERSON OF THE ACCUSED AS THE ARREST WAS ILLEGAL. 1. In the present case, the prosecution asserts that the warrantless arrest of the accused Robin L. Padilla was the result of a validly conducted buy-bust operation. They likewise claim that the arrest was performed after the accused had been duly informed of his constitutional rights. 2. Contrary to the claim of the apprehending police officers that the warrantless arrest was the result of a valid buybust operation, no actual buy-bust operation did in fact take place. As stated by the accused in his CounterAffidavit, members of the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) broke into his house by breaking open the padlock of his garage gate. Without introducing themselves as PDEA officers or presenting any warrant, 12-15 operatives of the PDEA armed with high-powered firearms then stormed his home confiscating money, cellular phones and other valuables from the persons of the accused and his visitors. The PDEA members then proceeded to haul off various items from within the home of the accused. 3. The accused then recounts that the PDEA operatives then escorted him and his companion Richard G. Gomez to a Red Toyota Revo, which then brought them to Camp Karingal. The accused and Richard G. Gomez were not informed of their rights upon their arrest, as well as what offense they were being charged with. 4. The right of the people to be secure against unreasonable searches and seizures is an inviolable right protected by the Constitution. As such no person may be validly arrested without the benefit of a warrant of arrest, except in the specific instances provided by law. Any warrantless arrest done outside the specific instances provided by law are thus deemed to be contrary to law and illegal. 5. The law as it presently stands, enumerates the instances when an warrant without warrant is valid in Section 5 of Rule 113 of the Rules of Court, to wit: Section 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. The enumeration contained in section 5 of Rule 113 of the Rules of Court being exclusive, any arrest without warrant done outside of those specified in therein are deemed illegal.

7.

The accused Robin L. Padilla could not have been caught committing the crime in the presence of his arresting officers, as he did not in fact sell any illegal drugs. Nor could the PDEA claim that they had personal knowledge that a crime had been committed and that the accused had in fact committed it. This is simply because there was no crime or valid buy-bust operation to speak of. Neither was the accused Robin L. Padilla a fugitive at the time he was arrested. None of the instances for a valid arrest without warrant under the Rules of Court were present. The arrest was thus illegal and as a consequence, the Court did not acquire jurisdiction over the person of the accused. As such, the accused may move for the quashal of the information or complaint filed against him/her as provided in the Rules of Court. 6. Thus considering that the only means, by which the court acquires jurisdiction over the person of an accused is either by his/her arrest or voluntary appearance, the effect of an illegal arrest absent the voluntary appearance of the accused is that the court does not acquire jurisdiction over his/her person. There is no recourse left other than to quash the present information, as the court has not acquired jurisdiction over the person of the accused. PRAYER WHEREFORE, considering the manifest illegality of the arrest of the accused Robin L. Padilla on 20 July 2010 and the consequent absence of jurisdiction by the court over the person of the accused, it is respectfully prayed that the Information for Violation of Section 5 of Republic Act No. 9165, otherwise known as ―The Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002‖ , issued by Assistant City Prosecutor Willie E. Revillame on 20 August 2010 against the accused be quashed. Other just and equitable reliefs are likewise prayed for. City of Manila for Quezon City, 17 September 2010. ISRAEL SOGUILON Counsel for Accused 20 TH Floor SBC Plaza,Mendiola,City of ManilaBy: Roll of Attorneys No. 12345 PTR No. 1234567; 01-05-2010; Pasig City IBP No. 234567; 01-05-2010; Makati City COPY FURNISHED: THE BRANCH CLERK OF COURT Regional Trial Court National Capital Judicial Region Quezon City, Branch 100 THE HONORABLE ASSISTANT CITY PROSECUTOR Office of the City Prosecutor Hall of Justice, Quezon City NOTICE OF HEARING Greetings: Please take notice that the foregoing Motion will be submitted for the Court’s consideration and resolution on 24 September 2010 at 8:30 a.m. or as soon thereafter as matter and counsel may be heard. COPY FURNISHED: THE BRANCH CLERK OF COURT Regional Trial Court National Capital Judicial Region Quezon City, Branch 100 THE HONORABLE ASSISTANT CITY PROSECUTOR Office of the City Prosecutor Hall of Justice, Quezon City