Republic of the Philippines

MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT IN CITIES

Third Judicial Region
BRANCH I
___________ City

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,

Plaintiffs,

-versus- Crim. Case No. ________

For: Violation of B.P. 22 (3 counts)

_______________________,
Accused.
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x

MOTION TO QUASH

The undersigned ACCUSED, before this Honorable Court

respectfully moves and states:

1. That an information for Violation of BP 22 (3 counts) was filed

before this Honorable Court against the herein accused.

2. That an information for Violation of BP 22 was also filed before

the Municipal Trial Court in Cities Branch II in Cabanatuan City
which involves the very same cause of action predicated on the
issuance of the same checks, (Copy of the said similar checks are
hereto attached as Annex “1”, “1-a”, “1-b”);

3. That, Article III Section 21 of the 1987 Constitution provides:

“No person shall be twice put in jeopardy

of punishment for the same offense. If an
act is punished by a law and an ordinance,
conviction or acquittal under either shall
constitute a bar to another prosecution for the
same act.”

That, the decision in either case would constitute double

jeopardy with the other considering that the checks allegedly
issued as a basis of the information in the above captioned case is
also included in the information filed before the Municipal Trial
Court in Cities Branch II in Cabanatuan City;

4. That, under Rule 111, Section 1 Par. B:

“The Criminal action for Violation of BP 22 shall

be deemed to include the corresponding civil
action. No reservation to file such civil action
separately shall be allowed.”
 Since the private complainant in this case did not file a
separate civil action and no reservation to file separate civil action
shall be allowed, the provision of Rule 16 on Litis Pendentia shall
apply and the instant case should be dismissed.

5. That, under Rule 7, Section 5 second par. on Forum Shopping of

The Revised Rules of Court provides:

“Failure to comply with the requirements on

forum shopping shall not be curable by mere
amendment of the complaint or other initiatory
pleading but shall be cause for the dismissal of the
case without prejudice, unless otherwise provided
upon motion and after hearing”

Since the private complainant neither reserved the

institution of separate civil action nor instituted it separately, the
same is deemed instituted with the criminal action. Hence the
filing of two informations in two different courts involving the
very same cause of action explicitly constitute forum shopping.

RELIEF PRAYED FOR

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, it is respectfully moved and

prayed of this Honorable Court, that the information in the above
captioned case be quashed;

Other relief and remedy just and equitable under the circumstances
are likewise prayed for.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED.

_____________ City, August 3, 2005.