REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT

NATIONAL CAPITAL JUDICIAL REGION
BRANCH 50
QUEZON CITY

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

Plaintiff,

- versus - CRIMINAL CASE No. Q-10-56789

Violation of Section 5, Article II
Republic Act No. 9165, (Comprehensive
Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002)

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:

PREFATORY STATEMENT

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 after violators
of the Dangerous Drugs Act as it is susceptible to mistake as well as
to harassment, extortion and abuse.”

1
226 SCRA 84 (1993)
 2

Accused is no drug pusher. 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 thus respectfully moves for the Quashal of the Information dated

20 August 2010 issued by Assistant City Prosecutor Willie E. Revillame, on the

following ground:

THE COURT DID NOT ACQUIRE JURISDICTION

OVER THE PERSON OF THE ACCUSED AS THE
ARREST WAS ILLEGAL.

1. In the present case, the prosecution asserts that the warrantless

arrest of the accused Robin L. Padilla was the result of a validly conducted buy-

bust operation. They likewise claim that the arrest was performed after the

accused had been duly informed of his constitutional rights.

2. Contrary to the claim of the apprehending police officers that the

warrantless arrest was the result of a valid buy-bust operation, no actual buy-

bust operation did in fact take place. As stated by the accused in his Counter-

Affidavit, members of the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) broke

into his house by breaking open the padlock of his garage gate. Without

introducing themselves as PDEA officers or presenting any warrant, 12-15

operatives of the PDEA armed with high-powered firearms then stormed his

home confiscating money, cellular phones and other valuables from the persons

of the accused and his visitors. The PDEA members then proceeded to haul off

various items from within the home of the accused.

 3

3. The accused then recounts that the PDEA operatives then escorted

him and his companion Richard G. Gomez to a Red Toyota Revo, which then

brought them to Camp Karingal. The accused and Richard G. Gomez were not

informed of their rights upon their arrest, as well as what offense they were

being charged with.

4. The right of the people to be secure against unreasonable searches

and seizures is an inviolable right protected by the Constitution 2. 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.

5. The law as it presently stands, enumerates the instances when an

warrant without warrant 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

(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.

2
Const. (1987), Art. III section 2
 4

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

are deemed illegal.

9. The accused Robin L. Padilla could not have been caught

committing the crime in the presence of his arresting officers, as he did not in fact

sell any illegal drugs. 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. This is simply because there was no crime or valid buy-bust

operation to speak of. Neither was the accused Robin L. Padilla a fugitive at the

time he was arrested. None of the instances for a valid arrest without warrant

under the Rules of Court were 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. 3

6. Thus considering that the only means, by which the court acquires

jurisdiction over the person of an accused is either by his/her 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/her person.4 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.

3
Rules of Court, Rule 117 sec. 3, par. (b)
4
People v Meris (G.R. Nos. 117145-50 & 117447. March 28, 2000.)
 5

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, considering the manifest illegality of the arrest of the

accused Robin L. Padilla on 20 July 2010 and the consequent absence of

jurisdiction by the court over the person of the accused, it is respectfully prayed

that the Information for Violation of Section 5 of Republic Act No. 9165,

otherwise known as “The Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002”, issued by

Assistant City Prosecutor Willie E. Revillame on 20 August 2010 against the

accused be quashed.

Other just and equitable reliefs are likewise prayed for.

City of Manila for Quezon City,

17 September 2010.

ABCDE LAW OFFICE

Counsel for Accused
20TH Floor SBC Plaza,
Mendiola,
City of Manila

By:

ISRAEL SOGUILON
Roll of Attorneys No. 12345
PTR No. 1234567; 01-05-2010; Pasig City
IBP No. 234567; 01-05-2010; Makati City

ARTHUR IMANUEL N. ZAPANTA

Roll of Attorneys No. 23456
PTR No. 9876543; 01-05-2010; Pasig City
IBP No. 876543; 01-05-2010; Quezon City
 6

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

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.m. or as
soon thereafter as matter and counsel may be heard.

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