Republic of the Philippines

Fifth Judicial Region

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
Branch 40, Legazpi City

-
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
Plaintiff,

-versus- CRIM. CASE NO. 1234

For : Simple Imprudence
Juan de la Cruz
Accused.
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- x

MOTION TO QUASH INFORMATION

Comes now accused Juan de la Cruz by the undersigned
counsel and unto this Honorable Court respectfully submits:

1. That from the facts presented by the private complainant

including the resolution prepared and released by the Honorable
City Prosecutor of Legazpi City, the accused herein move for the
quashal of the information on the ground that:

“That the facts charged do not constitute an offense.”

2. That accused submits that a complaint or 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. That given those circumstance, it is
but only proper that at this stage the prosecution should be shut
off lead the Honorable Court will only be burdened by baseless
accusation not worthy of a fuller examination.

3. On the Resolution filed by the Office of the City Prosecutor, the

herein accused were indicted for simple imprudence, resulting in
Serious Physical Injuries and Slight Physical Injuries, defined
and penalized under Article 365 of the Revised Penal Code. The
accused were alleged of leaving the car with its engines turned
on, doors unlocked, manifesting lack of foresight in situation
where either the threatened harm is not immediate or the danger
is not openly visible. The allegation of the prosecution is
untenable. Mr. John Doe (Doe, or brevity), the co-accused in this
case permitted the herein accused to park the subject car before
the incident happened. The accused had a notion that Doe will
seek out for him whenever an emergency arises since the latter
had the knowledge of the former being in the premises of the
Bank. The accused did not give Doe the authority to drive the
subject car. Therefore, it cannot be alleged that there was a lack
of precaution on the part of the accused.

4. The act alleged to herein accused was not the proximate cause of
the incident and for him to be charged of simple imprudence is

1
 really questionable. The elements of simple impudence
punishable under Article 365 of the Revised Penal Code are as
follows.

1. That there is lack of precaution on the part of the offender;

and
2. That the damage impending to be caused is not immediate o
the danger is not clearly manifest.

5. Moreover, in People vs. Lopez, the proximate cause refers to an

affirmative act and excludes acts of omission. The herein accused
was charged with acts of omission or failure to act by the
allegation of not taking the necessary precaution to avoid
accident to person. Therefore, the allegation of the Prosecutor
was not the proximate cause of the incident.

6. The negligence envisioned by the Honorable Prosecutor in People

vs. Vistan (Viada case) case should not be applied in this case. In
the aforesaid cited case, the proximate cause of the offense was
due to the SOLE negligence of the accused which means a
negligence of a party that is unmixed with the fault of any other
person or entity. There was an intervening factor when Doe,
entered and drove the subject car of the herein accused without
his permission. The proximate cause was the negligent act of
Rosales not seeking for the owner of the car and the act of driving
it without a license and authority. Therefore, if it is not the
negligence envisioned by Prosecutor, there is no criminal
negligence and it fails to state cause of action.

7. All told, the accused herein respectfully submits that since the
facts accrued by the complainants do not at all show criminal
liability and the resolution of the City prosecutor taking its whole
context does not admit that the crime of qualified theft was
committed. If is therefore but imperative that the information be
quash not only for lack of probable cause but clearly the facts as
shown does not constitute an offense.

PRAYER

Wherefore, it is most respectfully beseeched of this Honorable Court

that the above arguments be considered and the case dismissed since the
facts charged do not constitute an offense.

Other reliefs just and equitable under the premises are likewise
prayed for.
10 August 2019, Legazpi City.

Respectfully Submitted,

Accused

NOTICE

2
Office of the City Prosecutor
Rawis, Legazpi City

Please be informed that the undersigned counsel has caused to set

the foregoing Motion foe hearing on August 14, 2019 at 8:30 A.M., for
consideration of the Honorable Court.

FOOTNOTE:

Other sources of Motion to Quash in SCRBD