Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
-versus- -for-
MOTION TO QUASH
PREFATORY STATEMENT
In the case of Francisco vs. Court of Appeals, the Court held that where
an accused has been found to have committed a lesser offense includible
within the graver offense if it has already prescribed. To hold otherwise,
according to the Court, would be to sanction a circumvention of the law
on prescription by the simple expedient of accusing the defendant of
the graver offense1. (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)
STATEMENT OF FACTS
On March 26, 2018, am Imformation for Violation of par. 2, Article 206
of the Revised Penal Code, Slight Physical Injuries was filed against the
herein accused. The charge reads:
1
G.R. No. L-45674, 13 May 1983 122 SCRA 538
“That on or about October 31, 2017, in the Municipality of
New Corella, Province of Davao del Norte, Philippines, and
within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named
accused, did, then and there willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously
hit John Bailey, a 13-year old minor, with a branch of a madre de
cacao causing upon him physical injuries that need five (5) days
healing period.
CONTRARY TO LAW.”
From the Information itself and the facts presented by the Private
Complainant, it appears that the incident subject to this case happened on
October 31, 2017.
ISSUE:
It is the humble position of the defense that the criminal action has
already prescribed.
By the red letter law, the crime of Slight Physical Injuries under
paragraph 2 of Article 266 of the Revised Penal Code is punishable with the
penalty of arresto menor or a fine not exceeding 200 pesos. As such, the
same falls under the light offenses or penalties2. Verily, crimes which are
considered as light offenses prescribed in two months3 which means sixty
(60) days.
Under the law, prescription shall begin to run from the day of the
commission of the violation of the law. On the other hand, the period of
prescription of offenses shall be interrupted only by the filing of the complaint
or information.
2
Article 25 of the Revised Penal Code
3
Article 90 of the Revised Penal Code
Based on the factual milieu of the instant case, the alleged date of the
commission of the crime was on October 31, 2017. Thus, the prescriptive
period commenced on October 31, 2017 and ended two months after on
December 31, 2017.
Upon perusal of the records, the herein private complainant only filed
its criminal complaint on January 4, 2018, which is already beyond its
prescriptive period.
PRAYER
WHEREFORE, premises considered, and in the interest of justice, it is
humbly prayed unto this Honorable Court that the instant case against the
above-named accused be dismissed on the ground of prescription.
Other reliefs just and equitable under the premises are likewise prayed
for.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Tagum City, Davao del Norte,
Philippines, June 29, 2018.
By:
4
People vs. Moran, 44 Phil 387, 433
NOTICE OF HEARING
Greetings:
GIGI C. RUIZ-TICAR
Copy Furnished: