This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
PHILIPPINES Plaint iff, - versus (Comprehensive Act of 2002) CRIMINAL CASE No. Q-10-56789 Violation of Section 5, Article II Republic Act No. 9165, Dangerous Drugs
ROBIN LOPEZ PADILLA, Accused. x--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
MOTION TO QUASH INFORMATION
Accused Robin L. Padilla, by counsel, respectfully moves for the quashal of the Information dated 20 August 2010 issued by Assistant City Prosecutor Willie E. Revillame on the following ground:
Commenting on the possible abuses that are prone to occur in a buy-bust operation the Supreme Court held in the case of People vs. Ambih1:
“While buy-bust operation is a recognized means of entrapment for the apprehension of drug pushers, it does not always commend itself as the most reliable way to go
226 SCRA 84 (1993)
As stated by the accused in his Counter-Affidavit. 1. The only reason he is now in the custody of the police is because he was illegally arrested for reasons he still cannot comprehend.” Accused is no drug pusher. Without introducing themselves as PDEA officers or presenting any warrant. Accused thus respectfully moves for the Quashal of the Information dated 20 August 2010 issued by Assistant City Prosecutor Willie E. extortion and abuse.2 after violators of the Dangerous Drugs Act as it is susceptible to mistake as well as to harassment. members of the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) broke into his house by breaking open the padlock of his garage gate. They likewise claim that the arrest was performed after the accused had been duly informed of his constitutional rights. 12-15 operatives of the PDEA armed with high-powered firearms then stormed his home confiscating . on the following ground: THE COURT DID NOT ACQUIRE JURISDICTION OVER THE PERSON OF THE ACCUSED AS THE ARREST WAS ILLEGAL. In the present case. Padilla was the result of a validly conducted buy-bust operation. the prosecution asserts that the warrantless arrest of the accused Robin L. 2. Revillame. no actual buy-bust operation did in fact take place. Contrary to the claim of the apprehending police officers that the warrantless arrest was the result of a valid buy-bust operation.
or is attempting to commit an offense. Arrest without warrant. — A peace officer or a private person may. Art. (b) When an offense has just been committed. 3. The PDEA members then proceeded to haul off various items from within the home of the accused. The law as it presently stands. which then brought them to Camp Karingal. the person to be arrested has committed. (1987). enumerates the instances when an warrant without warrant is valid in Section 5 of Rule 113 of the Rules of Court. The accused and Richard G. III section 2 . is actually committing. Gomez were not informed of their rights upon their arrest. and 2 Const.3 money. as well as what offense they were being charged with. arrest a person: (a) When. to wit: Section 5. Any warrantless arrest done outside the specific instances provided by law are thus deemed to be contrary to law and illegal. 4. The accused then recounts that the PDEA operatives then escorted him and his companion Richard G. and he has probable cause to believe based on personal knowledge of facts or circumstances that the person to be arrested has committed it. As such no person may be validly arrested without the benefit of a warrant of arrest. 5. without a warrant. The right of the people to be secure against unreasonable searches and seizures is an inviolable right protected by the Constitution2. Gomez to a Red Toyota Revo. except in the specific instances provided by law. cellular phones and other valuables from the persons of the accused and his visitors. when lawful. in his presence.
as he did not in fact sell any illegal drugs.4 (c) When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has escaped from a penal establishment or place where he is serving final judgment or is temporarily confined while his case is pending. Padilla could not have been caught committing the crime in the presence of his arresting officers. (b) People v Meris (G. any arrest without warrant done outside of those specified in therein are deemed illegal. par.) . The accused Robin L. the effect of an illegal arrest absent the voluntary appearance of the accused is that the court does not acquire jurisdiction over his/her person. Nos.R. Rule 117 sec. 117145-50 & 117447. the accused may move for the quashal of the information or complaint filed against him/her as provided in the Rules of Court. Neither was the accused Robin L. 3. 9. Thus considering that the only means. The arrest was thus illegal and as a consequence. Padilla a fugitive at the time he was arrested. by which the court acquires jurisdiction over the person of an accused is either by his/her arrest or voluntary appearance.3 6. The enumeration contained in section 5 of Rule 113 of the Rules of Court being exclusive. 2000. None of the instances for a valid arrest without warrant under the Rules of Court were present. the Court did not acquire jurisdiction over the person of the accused. As such. March 28. This is simply because there was no crime or valid buy-bust operation to speak of.4 There is no recourse left other 3 4 Rules of Court. or has escaped while being transferred from one confinement to another. Nor could the PDEA claim that they had personal knowledge that a crime had been committed and that the accused had in fact committed it.
as the court has not acquired jurisdiction over the person of the accused.5 than to quash the present information. .
Quezon City COPY FURNISHED: . 01-05-2010. otherwise known as “The Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002”. issued by Assistant City Prosecutor Willie E. 9876543. 234567. Mendiola. 01-05-2010. 1234567. Makati City ARTHUR IMANUEL N. considering the manifest illegality of the arrest of the accused Robin L. Revillame on 20 August 2010 against the accused be quashed. 9165.6 PRAYER WHEREFORE. Pasig City IBP No. 01-05-2010. 17 September 2010. 12345 PTR No. City of Manila for Quezon City. Pasig City IBP No. Padilla on 20 July 2010 and the consequent absence of jurisdiction by the court over the person of the accused. 01-05-2010. ABCDE LAW OFFICE Counsel for Accused 20TH Floor SBC Plaza. 23456 PTR No. ZAPANTA Roll of Attorneys No. City of Manila By: ISRAEL SOGUILON Roll of Attorneys No. 876543. Other just and equitable reliefs are likewise prayed for. it is respectfully prayed that the Information for Violation of Section 5 of Republic Act No.
Quezon City NOTICE OF HEARING Greetings: Please take notice that the foregoing Motion will be submitted for the Court’s consideration and resolution on 24 September 2010 at 8:30 a. or as soon thereafter as matter and counsel may be heard. Branch 100 THE HONORABLE ASSISTANT CITY PROSECUTOR Office of the City Prosecutor Hall of Justice.7 THE BRANCH CLERK OF COURT Regional Trial Court National Capital Judicial Region Quezon City.m. COPY FURNISHED: THE BRANCH CLERK OF COURT Regional Trial Court National Capital Judicial Region Quezon City. Branch 100 THE HONORABLE ASSISTANT CITY PROSECUTOR Office of the City Prosecutor Hall of Justice. Quezon City .