REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT

WESTERN VISAYAS REGION
ILOILO CITY
Branch _________

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

Plaintiff,

- versus - SP. Proc. No. ______________________

For: Qualified Theft

MAR MAKAWAT
Defendant.
x------------------------------------- x
MOTION TO QUASH
INFORMATION

Defendant, thru counsel, and unto this Honorable Court, moves to

quash the Information filed against the said defendant on the ground:

1. That the facts charged do not constitute an offense.

ARGUMENTS

a. The Complaint-Affidavit does not have probable cause

establishing that defendant committed Qualified Theft.

(1) Defendant submits that the Information must state every

single fact necessary to constitute the offense charged.
From the legal and factual assessment of the facts
presented, the essential elements of the offense as
alleged and as defined by law was not sufficiently shown.
Given that circumstance, it is but only proper that the
prosecution should not continue filing this Information
against defendant.

(2) The private complainant in his Complaint-Affidavit

accuses the defendant for Theft for allegedly taking the
private complainant’s Rocky Mountain Altitude 730 Full
Suspension Mountain Bike with an estimated value of
sixty-five thousand pesos (Php 65 000) to the damage
and prejudice of the private complainant. Meanwhile,

1
 defendant herein was indicted for Qualified Theft by
same private complainant for the same alleged acts of
the defendant.

(3) Earlier, defendant herein has filed a Motion for Judicial

Determination of Probable Cause to impress upon this
Honorable Court that no probable cause exists to
warrant the prosecution of the defendant for any offense.
The Complaint-Affidavit and the court’s Resolution
clearly show that complainant saw the defendant
carrying a mountain bike outside the former’s home. In
the same instance, complainant saw the defendant’s son
riding a mountain bike and allegedly concluded that it is
her lost property. However, she failed to substantiate her
claims. If no facts were shown to constitute Theft, there
would be no legal basis of instituting any criminal
Information. “When it is clear that the Information does
not really charge an offense, the case against the accused
must be dropped immediately instead of subjecting him
to anxiety and inconvenience of a useless trial. The
accused is entitled to such consideration and indeed,
even the prosecution will benefit from such dismissal,
because it can then file corrected Information provided
that the accused has not yet attached. There is no point
of proceeding under defective Information that can never
be the basis of a valid conviction.1”

(4) As held in the case of Mafudo vs People 2, the elements of

Qualified Theft punishable under Article 310 in selection
to Article 308 and 309 of the Revised Penal Code are as
follows:
i. There was taking of personal property.
ii. That said property belongs to another.
iii. That the taking was done without the consent of
the owner.
iv. That the taking was done with intent to gain.
v. That the taking was accomplished without
violence or intimidation against person or force
upon things.
vi. That the taking was done under any of the
circumstances enumerated in Art. 310 of the
Revised Penal Code with grave abuse of
confidence.
(5) All told, defendant herein respectfully submits that
since the facts posited by private complainant do not at
all show criminal liability and the resolution of the City
Prosecutor taking the entire context does not admit that
the crime of Qualified Theft was committed. It is thus
1
Cruz vs Court of Appeals, GR. No. 93754, 18 February 1991
2
GR No. 179061, 13 July 2009

2
 imperative that the Information be quashed not only for
lack of probable cause but clearly the facts as shown
does not constitute an offense.

PRAYER
WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing, it is respectfully prayed
that the above-entitled Information be quashed, and the defendant be
discharged.

Iloilo City: 1 January 2019.

CORTINA & MONTES LAW OFFICES

Counsel for the Defendant
Block 3, Lot 2 Phase 2,
Carmen J. Ledesma Village,
Baragay Tacas, Jaro,
Iloilo City, Philippines
Tel. No. (02) 817-9222 / Fax No. (02) 887-2936

By:

KIM JOHN V. VILLA

Attorney’s Roll No. 52055
PTR No. 5323550/ 01.04.16/ Iloilo
IBP (Lifetime) No. LRN-010317/Iloilo
MCLE Compliance No. V-0019654/ April 22, 2016

REQUEST FOR & NOTICE OF HEARING

BRANCH CLERK OF COURT

Regional Trial Court
Iloilo City, Branch ____

Please submit the foregoing Motion to the Court for its consideration and
approval immediately upon receipt hereof and kindly include the same in the
court’s calendar for hearing on Friday, 13 April 2019 at 8:30 in the morning.

ATTICUS FINCH
Counsel for Private Complainant
1 MockingBird Street,
Timog Avenue, Quezon City)

3
 Please take note that counsel requested to be heard on Friday, 13
April 2019 at 8:30 in the morning.

CORTINA & MONTES LAW OFFICES

Counsel for the Defendant
Block 3, Lot 2 Phase 2,
Carmen J. Ledesma Village,
Baragay Tacas, Jaro,
Iloilo City, Philippines
Tel. No. (02) 817-9222 / Fax No. (02) 887-2936

By:

KIM JOHN V. VILLA

Attorney’s Roll No. 52055
PTR No. 5323550/ 01.04.16/ Iloilo
IBP (Lifetime) No. LRN-010317/Iloilo
MCLE Compliance No. V-0019654/ April 22, 2016

PROOF OF PERSONAL SERVICE

Copy furnished through personal service:

CORTINA & MONTES LAW OFFICES

Counsel for the Defendant
Block 3, Lot 2 Phase 2,
Carmen J. Ledesma Village,
Baragay Tacas, Jaro,
Iloilo City, Philippines
Tel. No. (02) 817-9222 / Fax No. (02) 887-2936

By:

KIM JOHN V. VILLA

Attorney’s Roll No. 52055
PTR No. 5323550/ 01.04.16/ Iloilo
IBP (Lifetime) No. LRN-010317/Iloilo
MCLE Compliance No. V-0019654/ April 22, 2016