You are on page 1of 7

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT


NATIONAL CAPITAL JUDICIAL REGION
BRANCH 50
QUEZON CITY

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES


Plaint
iff,

- versus - CRIMINAL CASE No. Q-10-56789


Violation of Section 5, Article II
Republic Act No. 9165,
(Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs
Act of 2002)

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.

Ambih1:

“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

1
226 SCRA 84 (1993)
2

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 reasons

he 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 buy-bust operation,

no actual buy-bust operation did in fact take place. As stated by the

accused in his Counter-Affidavit, 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


3

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

Constitution2. 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

2
Const. (1987), Art. III section 2
4

(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.

9. 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.3

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.4 There is no recourse left other

3
Rules of Court, Rule 117 sec. 3, par. (b)
4
People v Meris (G.R. Nos. 117145-50 & 117447. March 28, 2000.)
5

than to quash the present information, as the court has not acquired

jurisdiction over the person of the accused.


6

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.

ABCDE LAW OFFICE


Counsel for Accused
20TH Floor SBC Plaza,
Mendiola,
City of Manila

By:

ISRAEL SOGUILON
Roll of Attorneys No. 12345
PTR No. 1234567; 01-05-2010; Pasig City
IBP No. 234567; 01-05-2010; Makati City

ARTHUR IMANUEL N. ZAPANTA


Roll of Attorneys No. 23456
PTR No. 9876543; 01-05-2010; Pasig City
IBP No. 876543; 01-05-2010; Quezon City

COPY FURNISHED:
7

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