Republic of the Philippines

MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT IN CITIES

Second Judicial Region
Branch 01
Tuguegarao City, Cagayan

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES CRIM. CASE NO. 32117

Plaintiff

- versus - F O R : VIOLATION OF RA 11332

JOHN ALBERT BUNAGAN, et.al.

Accused.
x---------------------x

MOTION TO QUASH

Both accused, through the Public Attorney’s Office, by the undersigned

counsel, and to this Honorable Court most respectfully moves to quash the
Information filed against them on the ground that:

The facts charged do not constitute an offense.1

ARGUMENTS

1.Accused are indicted for Violation of Section 9(e) of Republic Act No. 11332,
under an Information which reads:

“That at around 5:30 o’clock in the afternoon of April 26, 2020, in the City
of Tuguegarao, Province of Cagayan, and within the jurisdiction of this
Honorable Court, the accused JOHN ALBERT BUNAGAN y DUPAYA and
KYLE JERICHO BUNAGAN y CATALON, in conspiracy with each other, did
then and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, refuse or fail to
cooperate with the strict home quarantine which is one of the existing
guidelines or protocol issued during the Enhanced Community Quarantine
(ECQ) brought about by the proclamation of the State of Public Health
Emergency by the President of the Philippines due to COVID-19; that the
outbreak of COVID-19 facilitated the implementation of the provisions of
R.A. 11332 by Proclamation No. 922 to include the mandatory reporting,
failure to observe strict home quarantine which is one of the existing
guidelines in the implementation of the Genral Community Quarantine
(GCQ) to prevent the spread of COVID 19, that during the GCQ, Night
Time Curfew from 10:00 PM to 5:00 AM the following day was also
imposed in Tuguegarao City, that the three (3) accused went out of their
residence showing non-cooperation in the protocol of the GCQ, despite
the fact that they are persons considered affected by the health event of
public concern; that while the private complainants PSMS ACE BANGAYAN
and PSSG ELICEL ADARME, who are both members of the PNPO assigned
at Tuguegarao City Police Station were conducting beat patrol, they
1
Sec. 3a, Rule 117 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure
 2

flagged down the three (3) accused on board a Toyota LUcide vehicle
roaming along Enrile Boulevard, Carig Sur, this City without any valid
reason, and despite the restriction imposed by the curfew, that the two
accused are not amon ghtose authorized persons outside residence
(APOR), prompting the said police officers to arrest them.

CONTRARY TO LAW.”

2.Accused, however, submit that the facts charged do not constitute an

offense.

3.Cited in People vs. Sandiganbayan2 are the following pronouncements:

The main purpose of an Information is to ensure that an accused is formally

informed of the facts and the acts constituting the offense charged.  Where
insufficient, an accused in a criminal case can file a motion to have the
Information against him quashed and/or dismissed before he enters his
plea. 

This Court, in Lazarte v. Sandiganbayan,  explained the two important

purposes underlying the rule. First, it enables the accused to suitably
prepare his defense. Second, it allows the accused, if found guilty, to plead
his conviction in a subsequent prosecution for the same offense. Thus, this
Court held that the true test in ascertaining the validity and sufficiency of an
Information is "whether the crime is described in intelligible terms with such
particularity as to apprise the accused, with reasonable certainty, of the
offense charged."

4. Accused were charged with Violation of RA 11332 which is

otherwise known as “Mandatory Reporting of Notifiable Diseases
and Health Events of Public Health Concern Act” and the law
specifies the prohibited acts3 as follows:

a. Unauthorized disclosure of private and confidential

information pertaining to a patient’s medical condition or
treatment;
b. Tampering of records or intentionally providing
misinformation;
c. Non-operation of the disease surveillance and response
systems;
d. Non-cooperation of persons and entities that should report
and/or respond to notifiable diseases or health events of
public concern; and
e. Non-cooperation of the person or entities identified as having
the notifiable disease or affected by the health event of public
concern.

5. In the instant case, the Information failed to specifically state

which of these prohibited acts did the accused commit that would
warrant the instant charge, which is a violation of their right to be

2
G.R.160619, Spetember 9, 2015
3
Section 9 of RA 11332
 3

informed of the nature or cause of accusation against them. At any

rate, nothing in the afore-stated provision provides that being
outside one’s residence constitute crime.

6. In 2019, Republic Act No. 11332, otherwise known as the

“Mandatory Reporting of Notifiable Diseases and Health Events of
Public Health Concern Act” was enacted to replace “Law on
Reporting of Communicable Diseases” (Act No. 3573) 4 which has
been the governing law for almost nine decades. 

7. Republic Act No. 11332 was passed with the general objective of
“protecting the people from public health threats through the
efficient and effective disease surveillance of notifiable
diseases including emerging and re-emerging infectious diseases,
diseases for elimination and eradication, epidemics, and health
events”5

8. As the title connotes, “Non-cooperation” in the said law is limited

to the “mandatory reporting” of the existence of contagious
diseases. Persons or entities, even identified as NOT having the
notifiable disease, for as long as affected by the health event of
public concern must thus COOPERATE IN THIS MANDATORY
REPORTING.

9. A perusal of the house bills and the senate bills from which the law
emanates provide context for the meaning that lawmakers
intended for the word “non-cooperation”.

10. Section 12 of Senate Bill No. 1647 (authored by former

senator Joseph Victor Ejercito and incumbent senator Nancy Binay)
“shows that the prohibited act covers the non-cooperation of
persons or entities that should report the public health events to
the appropriate public health authority.”

11. Section 9 of Senate Bill 1864 (authored by Sen. Risa

Hontiveros) and Section 9(c) of House Bill No. 7134 (sponsored by
Quezon 4th District Rep. Angelina Tan) “both suggest the non-
cooperation of persons and entities that should report and/or
respond to notifiable diseases of health events of public health
concern to qualify as one of the prohibited acts.”

12. RA 11332 therefore makes obligatory the reporting of a

communicable diseases to the (DOH). The law also mandates the
cooperation to the response system institutionalized by the (DOH)
to address the public health emergency.

13. To reiterate, the purported acts committed by the accused as

alleged in the Information are not among the prohibited acts under
the law.

4
Available at http://www.congress.gov.ph/press/details.php?pressid=10064
5
 Sec. 2, Republic Act No. 11332
 4

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is most respectfully prayed of this

Honorable Court to quash the Information filed in Criminal Case 31931 on the
ground that the facts charged do not constitute an offense.

Other reliefs, just and equitable in the premises are likewise prayed for.

Tuguegarao City, Cagayan – February 8, 2021.

PUBLIC ATTORNEY’S OFFICE

Hall of Justice
Carig, Tuguegarao City

By:
MARYDINE CAMBRI MERCADO
Public Attorney II
Counsel for the Accused
Roll No. 64356
IBP No. 030652, Cagayan
MCLE No. VI-0025998 until April 14, 2022

NOTICE OF HEARING

THE BRANCH CLERK OF COURT

MTCC- Branch I
Tuguegarao City, Cagayan

HON. RACQUEL C. REYES-AGLAUA

Presiding Judge
MTCC- Branch I
City Hall Building
Tuguegarao City, Cagayan

Greetings:

Please take notice that undersigned counsel will submit the Motion for the
consideration and approval of the Honorable Court on February 19, 2021 at 1:30
in the afternoon or soon thereafter as matter and counsel may be heard.

ATTY. MARYDINE CAMBRI MERCADO

COPY FURNISHED:
 5

HON. CELERINO REYES

Trial Prosecutor
Tuguegarao City, Cagayan