Republic of the Philippines

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT

Fifth Judicial Region
Branch 52
Sorsogon City

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, CRIM CASE NOS. 8442-43

Plaintiff, FOR: MURDER AND
FRUSTRATED MURDER
-vs.-

JOSEPH LOYOLA y LAURA.

Accused.
X------------------ X
___________________

MOTION TO QUASH THE INFORMATIONS

____________________

COMES NOW, ACCUSED, through undersigned counsel, unto this

Honorable Court, most respectfully move to QUASH THE INFORMATIONS
filed against said accused on the GROUND:

“THAT THE OFFICER WHO FILED THE

INFORMATION HAD NO AUTHORITY TO DO
SO.” [Sec. 3, (d), Rule 117, Revised Rules of
Criminal Procedure].

ARGUMENT/S

“THAT THE OFFICER WHO FILED THE

INFORMATION HAD NO AUTHORITY TO
DO SO.” [Sec. 3, (d), Rule 117, Revised Rules
of Criminal Procedure].

Allow the undersigned to discuss with utmost respect and courtesy why
the Court trying this case has no jurisdiction over the person of the accused as a
consequence of the fact that the officer who filed the information had no
authority to do so:

1. On 28 August 2012, Information charging the accused with

violations of Article 248 (Murder) & (Frustrated Murder) were filed before this
Honorable Court under Criminal Cases Nos. 2012-8442 and 2012-8843,
respectively. [Hereto Attached as EXHIBITS “A” & “B”, respectively];

2. However, said Informations while signed by the Investigating

Prosecutor Emma S. Salvador Janer, Associate Prosecution Attorney II,
Provincial Prosecutor, the same WERE NOT SIGNED by the Honorable CHIEF
Provincial Prosecutor Regina Coelli Frilles-Gabito;

3. In the recent case of Quinsay vs. People of the Philippines, G. R.

No. 216920, 13 January 2016, (a notorious landmark Drug Case), the Honorable
Supreme Court gave emphasis to Section 4, Rule 112 of the 2000 Revised Rules
of Criminal Procedure. Said provision states that the FILING of a complaint or
INFORMATION REQUIRES a PRIOR WRITTEN AUTHORITY or
APPROVAL of the named officers therein before a complaint or information
may be filed before the courts, to wit:

“SECTION 4. Resolution of investigating

prosecutor and its review.- If the investigating
prosecutor finds cause to hold respondent for trial , he shall
prepare the resolution and information. He shall certify
under oath in the information that he has, as shown by the
record, an authorized officer, has personally examined the
complainant and his witnesses; that there is reasonable
ground to believe that a crime has been committed and that
the accused is probably guilty thereof; that the accused was
informed of the complaint and of the evidence submitted
against him, and that he was given an opportunity to
submit controverting evidence. Otherwise, he shall
recommend the dismissal of the complaint.

Within five (5) days from his resolution he shall

forward the records of the case to the provincial or city
prosecutor or chief state prosecutor, or to the Ombudsman
or his deputy in cases of offenses cognizable by the
Sandiganbayan in the exercise of its original jurisdiction.
They shall act on the resolution within ten (10) days from
their receipt thereof and shall immediately inform the
parties of such action.

“NO COMPLAINT OR INFORMATION MAY

BE FILED OR DISMISSED BY AN INVESTIGATING
PROSECUTOR WITHOUT THE PRIOR WRITTEN
AUTHORITY OR APPROVAL OF THE
PROVINCIAL OR CITY PROSECUTOR OR THE
OMBUDSMAN OR HIS DEPUTY.” [EMPHASIS
SUPPLIED OURS.]

4. In the said case, the Supreme Court, finding Petitioner’s contention

meritorious, further Held as follows:
 “Thus, as a general rule, complaints or information
filed before the courts without the prior written authority
or approval of the foregoing authorized officers renders the
same defective and, therefore, subject to quashal pursuant
to Section 3 (d), Rule 117 of the same Rules, to wit:

“SECTION 3. Grounds.- The accused may move

to quash the complaint or information on any of the
following grounds:

Xxx

(d) That the officer who filed the

information had no authority to do so.”

5. It is the valid information signed by a competent officer which,

among other requirements, confer jurisdiction on the court over the person of the
accused and the subject matter of the accusation. In consonance with this view,
an infirmity in the information, such as lack of authority of the officer signing it,
CANNOT BE CURED BY SILENCE, ACQUIESCENCE, OR EVEN BY
EXPRESS CONSENT.(1)

6. Being a JURISDICTIONAL ISSUE the same may be filed at any

stage of the proceedings. Under the law, once the Court has no jurisdiction, its
jurisdiction is to dismiss the case only, and no other.

7. In order to obviate the possibility of this instant prosecution for

Murder and Frustrated Murder to be annulled for want of jurisdiction, the herein
movant, through counsel, therefore moves that the issue of jurisdiction be
resolved first before conduction any full blown trial in order to avoid the court’s
spending precious time and energy unnecessarily in trying and deciding the
case, and to spare the accused from the inconvenience, anxiety and
embarrassment , let alone the expenditure of effort and money, in undergoing
trial for this case.(2) In view of the aforementioned CONSTITUTIONALLY
FATAL DEFECT, it is hereby prayed of this Honorable Court that the
INFORMATIONS for Murder and Frustrated Murder against JOSEPH LAURA
LOYOLA denominated under Criminal Cases Nos. 2012-8442 and 2012-8843,
respectively, BE QUASHED, and the said Accused be DISCHARGED.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, it is respectfully prayed that the

above-entitled INFORMATIONS for Murder and Frustrated Murder against
JOSEPH LAURA LOYOLA denominated under Criminal Cases Nos. 2012-8442
and 2012-8843, respectively, BE QUASHED, and the said Accused be
DISCHARGED.

1
90 SCAD 158, 284 SCRA 173 [1998].
2
Mead vs. Argel, 115 SCRA 256 [1882].
 Other reliefs and remedies just and equitable under the premises are
likewise prayed for.

September 23, 2019, Sorsogon City, Province of Sorsogon, Philippines.

CYRIL C. OROPESA
Counsel for the Accused
Rollo No. 54962
IBP No. 847640/January 2, 2014
PTR No. 147967/January 15, 2015
MCLE Compliance No. IV-0023763 UP Law Center
University of the Philippines, Diliman, Quezon City
#435 Market Site Sirangan, Sorsogon City
CP No. 09177672368/cyril_621975@yahoo.com

NOTICE
Mr. CLARINCE B. JINTALAN
OIC- Branch Clerk of Court
Regional Trial Court, Branch 52
Hall of Justice, Sorsogon City

GREETINGS! Kindly submit the foregoing MOTION TO QUASH with prior

oral Leave of Court on September 27, 2019, at 8:30 in the morning at the Session Hall of
the Regional Trial Court, Branch 52, Sorsogon City immediately upon receipt hereof, or
on such time convenient to the calendar of the Court, for the consideration and approval
of the Honorable Court.

CYRIL C. OROPESA
Counsel for the Accused
Rollo No. 54962
IBP No. 847640/January 2, 2014
PTR No. 147967/January 15, 2015
MCLE Compliance No. IV-0023763 UP Law Center
University of the Philippines, Diliman, Quezon City
#435 Market Site Sirangan, Sorsogon City
CP No. 09177672368/cyril_621975@yahoo.com

NOTICE
Mr. CLARINCE B. JINTALAN
OIC- Branch Clerk of Court
Regional Trial Court, Branch 52
Hall of Justice, Sorsogon City

Hon. JUDE SALVADOR H. HIBO

Assoc. Provincial Prosecutor
Provincial Prosecution Office
Hall of Justice, Sorsogon City
 PLEASE be informed that the foregoing MOTION TO QUASH with prior oral
Leave of Court will be submitted upon receipt hereof, for the consideration and
approval of the Honorable Court on September 27, 2019, at 8:30 o’clock in the morning at
the Session Hall of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 52-Sorsogon, or on such time
convenient to the calendar of the Court.

CYRIL C. OROPESA
Counsel for the Accused
Rollo No. 54962
IBP No. 847640/January 2, 2014
PTR No. 147967/January 15, 2015
MCLE Compliance No. IV-0023763 UP Law Center
University of the Philippines, Diliman, Quezon City
#435 Market Site Sirangan, Sorsogon City
CP No. 09177672368/cyril_621975@yahoo.com

Copy Furnished:

Hon. JUDE SALVADOR H. HIBO

Assoc. Provincial Prosecutor
Provincial Prosecution Office
Hall of Justice, Sorsogon City