You are on page 1of 4

To: Anna Quinn, Attorney

From: Oby Juan, Attorney

Case: Criminal Case No. 14344, People of the Philippines vs Job Hutt, Cebu City
RTC Branch 666
Re: Motion to Quash

Criminal Case No. 14344

For: Murder

Accused Job Hutt (Hutt), through counsel, respectfully moves for the
quashal of the Information dated 8 January 2014 issued by the Office of the
Commenting on the possible invalidity of the arrest made without a warrant,
the Supreme Court cited in the case of People v. Ayangao1:
In those cases where this Court invalidated a warrantless search on the ground
that the officers could have applied for a search warrant, the concerned officers
received the tip either days prior to the arrival or in the afternoon of a working
day. In People vs. Aminudin, this Court found that the officers received the tip two
days prior to the actual date of arrival of accused Aminudin. In People vs.
Encinada, the police officers were tipped off at 4:00 P.M. on May 20, 1992 that
accused Encinada would arrive at 7:00 A.M. the next day. Thus, the officers had
time to obtain search warrants inasmuch as Administrative Circulars 13 and 19 of
1 People v. Ayangao, G.R. No. 142356, 14 Apr 2004.

the Supreme Court allowed the application for search warrants even after office
hours. In People vs. Aruta the police officers received the information on
December 13, 1988 that accused Aruta would arrive on a Victory Liner Bus at
6:30 P.M. on December 14, 1999, giving them a day to obtain a warrant.

Further, the Court ruled that a search and consequent seizure must be carried out
with a judicial warrant; otherwise, it becomes unreasonable and any evidence
obtained therefrom shall be inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding. Said
proscription, however, admits of exceptions, namely:
1. Warrantless search incidental to a lawful arrest;
2. Search of evidence in "plain view;"
3. Search of a moving vehicle;
4. Consented warrantless search;
5. Customs search;
6. Stop and Frisk; and
7. Exigent and emergency circumstances.
What constitutes a reasonable or unreasonable warrantless search or seizure
is purely a judicial question, determinable from the uniqueness of the
circumstances involved, including the purpose of the search or seizure, the
presence or absence of probable cause, the manner in which the search and seizure
was made, the place or thing searched, and the character of the articles procured.2
Accused Hutt was arrested without a valid arrest warrant procured by an
arresting officer from a judge of competent jurisdiction. Moreover, the arrest of the
accused was not even more justifiable since his seizure was not of one in hot
pursuit, in flagrante delicto, stop and frisk, plain view, or in any of the exceptional
cases of warrantless arrest.

Job Hutt is now facing a pending criminal charge for the murder of one Amy
Dala that happened on the 5th of January 2014. He is arrested in his home without a
warrant of arrest on the 8th of January 2014 based on the identification by Jan Go
among five photographs of male persons that the police showed to him the day
before Job Hutts arrest. He is now currently in detention and has not yet been
Right after Jobb Hutts arrest, the police presented him to the media as the
suspect of Amy Dalas murder. On the same day of his arrest, the police filed a
2 People v. Racho, G.R. No. 186529, 3 Aug 2010.

criminal complaint for murder against Job Hutt with the prosecutors office. Job
Hutt signed a waiver of his arrest while the office of the prosecutor conducted a
preliminary investigation. On the 3rd of February 2014, the office of the prosecutor
filed a case of murder against Jobb Hutt.
But Jobb Hutts mother raised the issue that during the preliminary
investigation, his son is not able to present evidence on his behalf because he had
no counsel at that time. Jobb Hutt is also not notified of the preliminary
investigation proceedings. So Mr. Jobb Hutts mother is now engaging our legal
services to defend him in court.
Accused thus respectfully moves for the Quashal of the Information dated 8
January 2014 issued by the Office of the Prosecutor, on the following grounds:
In the present case, Job Hutt was arrested in his residence while he was
eating. The police officer arrested Hutt acting on the identification of Hutt as
murderer by one Jan Go who allegedly had personal knowledge of the crime
The right of the people to be secure against unreasonable searches and
seizures is an inviolable right protected by the Constitution 3. As such no person
may be validly arrested without the benefit of a warrant of arrest, except in the
specific instances provided by law. Any warrantless arrest done outside the specific
instances provided by law are thus deemed to be contrary to law and illegal.
The law as it presently stands, enumerates the instances when a warrantless
arrest is valid in Section 5 of Rule 113 of the Rules of Court, to wit:
Section 5. Arrest without warrant; when lawful. A
peace officer or a private person may, without a warrant,
arrest a person:
(a) When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has
committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to
commit an offense;
(b) When an offense has just been committed, and he has
probable cause to believe based on personal knowledge
of facts or circumstances that the person to be arrested
has committed it; and

3 Const. (1987), Art. III section 2.

(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, or has escaped while being
transferred from one confinement to another.
The enumeration contained in section 5 of Rule 113 of the Rules of Court
being exclusive, any arrest without warrant done outside of those specified in
therein is deemed illegal.
The accused Job Hutt could not have been caught committing the crime in
the presence of his arresting officer, as he did not in fact kill Amy Dala. Nor could
the opposition claim that they had personal knowledge that a crime had been
committed and that the accused had in fact committed it. This is simply because
there was no crime to speak of. Neither was the accused Job Hutt a fugitive at the
time he was arrested. None of the instances for a valid arrest without warrant under
the Rules of Court was present. The arrest was thus illegal and as a consequence,
the Court did not acquire jurisdiction over the person of the accused. As such, the
accused may move for the quashal of the information or complaint filed against
him/her as provided in the Rules of Court.4
Thus considering that the only means by which the court acquires
jurisdiction over the person of an accused is either by his arrest or voluntary
appearance, the effect of an illegal arrest absent the voluntary appearance of the
accused is that the court does not acquire jurisdiction over his person. 5 There is no
recourse left other than to quash the present information, as the court has not
acquired jurisdiction over the person of the accused Job Hutt.
WHEREFORE, considering the manifest illegality of the arrest of the Accused
Job Hutt on 8 January 2014 and the consequent failure of the court to acquire
jurisdiction over the person of the accused, it is respectfully prayed to this
Honorable Court to quash the Information for murder and to dismiss the criminal
charge against him.
Other just and equitable reliefs are likewise prayed for.
Cebu City, March 15, 2014.
Counsel for the Accused
Attorney Oby Juan

4 Rules of Court, Rule 117 sec. 3, par. (b).

5 People v Meris, G.R. Nos. 117145-50 & 117447, 28 Mar 2000.