Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
JOB HUTT
Accused
X--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------///
MOTION TO QUASH INFORMATION
Accused Job Hutt (Hutt), through counsel, respectfully moves for the
quashal of the Information dated 8 January 2014 issued by the Office of the
Prosecutor.
PREFATORY STATEMENT
Commenting on the possible invalidity of the arrest made without a warrant,
the Supreme Court cited in the case of People v. Ayangao1:
In those cases where this Court invalidated a warrantless search on the ground
that the officers could have applied for a search warrant, the concerned officers
received the tip either days prior to the arrival or in the afternoon of a working
day. In People vs. Aminudin, this Court found that the officers received the tip two
days prior to the actual date of arrival of accused Aminudin. In People vs.
Encinada, the police officers were tipped off at 4:00 P.M. on May 20, 1992 that
accused Encinada would arrive at 7:00 A.M. the next day. Thus, the officers had
time to obtain search warrants inasmuch as Administrative Circulars 13 and 19 of
1 People v. Ayangao, G.R. No. 142356, 14 Apr 2004.
the Supreme Court allowed the application for search warrants even after office
hours. In People vs. Aruta the police officers received the information on
December 13, 1988 that accused Aruta would arrive on a Victory Liner Bus at
6:30 P.M. on December 14, 1999, giving them a day to obtain a warrant.
Further, the Court ruled that a search and consequent seizure must be carried out
with a judicial warrant; otherwise, it becomes unreasonable and any evidence
obtained therefrom shall be inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding. Said
proscription, however, admits of exceptions, namely:
1. Warrantless search incidental to a lawful arrest;
2. Search of evidence in "plain view;"
3. Search of a moving vehicle;
4. Consented warrantless search;
5. Customs search;
6. Stop and Frisk; and
7. Exigent and emergency circumstances.
What constitutes a reasonable or unreasonable warrantless search or seizure
is purely a judicial question, determinable from the uniqueness of the
circumstances involved, including the purpose of the search or seizure, the
presence or absence of probable cause, the manner in which the search and seizure
was made, the place or thing searched, and the character of the articles procured.2
Accused Hutt was arrested without a valid arrest warrant procured by an
arresting officer from a judge of competent jurisdiction. Moreover, the arrest of the
accused was not even more justifiable since his seizure was not of one in hot
pursuit, in flagrante delicto, stop and frisk, plain view, or in any of the exceptional
cases of warrantless arrest.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
Job Hutt is now facing a pending criminal charge for the murder of one Amy
Dala that happened on the 5th of January 2014. He is arrested in his home without a
warrant of arrest on the 8th of January 2014 based on the identification by Jan Go
among five photographs of male persons that the police showed to him the day
before Job Hutts arrest. He is now currently in detention and has not yet been
arraigned.
Right after Jobb Hutts arrest, the police presented him to the media as the
suspect of Amy Dalas murder. On the same day of his arrest, the police filed a
2 People v. Racho, G.R. No. 186529, 3 Aug 2010.
criminal complaint for murder against Job Hutt with the prosecutors office. Job
Hutt signed a waiver of his arrest while the office of the prosecutor conducted a
preliminary investigation. On the 3rd of February 2014, the office of the prosecutor
filed a case of murder against Jobb Hutt.
But Jobb Hutts mother raised the issue that during the preliminary
investigation, his son is not able to present evidence on his behalf because he had
no counsel at that time. Jobb Hutt is also not notified of the preliminary
investigation proceedings. So Mr. Jobb Hutts mother is now engaging our legal
services to defend him in court.
ISSUE AND ARGUMENT
Accused thus respectfully moves for the Quashal of the Information dated 8
January 2014 issued by the Office of the Prosecutor, on the following grounds:
THE COURT DID NOT ACQUIRE JURISDICTION
OVER THE PERSON OF THE ACCUSED AS THE
ARREST WAS ILLEGAL.
In the present case, Job Hutt was arrested in his residence while he was
eating. The police officer arrested Hutt acting on the identification of Hutt as
murderer by one Jan Go who allegedly had personal knowledge of the crime
committed.
The right of the people to be secure against unreasonable searches and
seizures is an inviolable right protected by the Constitution 3. 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.
The law as it presently stands, enumerates the instances when a warrantless
arrest 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