Republic of the Philippines

National Capital Judicial Region

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
Branch 120, Caloocan City

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,

Plaintiff CRIMINAL CASE No. C-012222
-vs- For: Murder

David Gale,
Accused.
X--------------------------------------------------------X

MOTION TO QUASH INFORMATION

Comes now the accused David Gale by the undersigned counsel and unto
this Honorable Court respectfully files the Motion to Quash based on the
following grounds, to wit:

 That the facts charge do not constitute an offense;

 That the court trying the case has no jurisdiction over the offense
charged.

1. The information dated December 1, 2021 charges the accused David Gale with
the crime of Murder under Article 248 of the RPC, allegedly commit as follows:

“The accused David Gale charged with the crime of murder, defined
and penalized under Art. 248 of the Revised Penal Code, committed as
follows:

That on or about the 9th Day of August 2021, the said accused, being
a friend and co-activist of the victim and who has access to the house of the
latter, with treachery and evident premeditation, did then and there
willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, entered the house of Constance
Hallaway, handcuffed both hands behind her back, covered the victim’s
head with plastic bag that causes suffocation leading to the victim’s death.”
2. The accused submits that the information must state every single act
necessary to constitute the offense charged. From the assessment of the facts
presented, the essential elements of the offense as alleged and as defined by law
was not sufficiently shown.

3. From the cited information, there is no actual recital of the facts related to the
place where the crime was actually committed and fails to establish the presence
of the accused to the said crime.

4. The information laid down a mere statement that the accused is a friend and
have access to the house of the alleged victim, however, it fails to specify the
place where the incident happen and how it happened.

5. The pertinent provision of the Rules of Court especially on the Rules on

Criminal Procedures specifically sections 6 and 9 of Rule 110 provides that:

“Sec. 6. Sufficiency of complaint or information. – A complaint or

information is sufficient if it states the name of the accused; the designation
of the offense given by the statute; the acts or omissions complained of as
constituting the offense; the name of the offended party; the approximate
date of the commission of the offense; and the place where the offense was
committed. When an offense is committed by more than one person, all of
them shall be included in the complaint or information.

Sec. 9. Cause of the accusation. – The acts or omissions complained of

as constituting the offense and the qualifying and aggravating
circumstances must be stated in ordinary and concise language and not
necessarily in the language used in the statute but in terms sufficient to
enable a person of common understanding to know what offense is being
charged as well as its qualifying and aggravating circumstance and for the
court to pronounce judgment.”

6. The accused respectfully submits that the information is wanting on this

particular matter.
7. As declared by the Supreme Court1, one of its decided cases, if the standards
of sufficiency defined and set by the applicable rule of procedure were not
followed, the consequences would be dire for the State, for the accused could be
found and declared guilty only of the crime properly charged in the information

“xxxx…

an accused cannot be convicted of an offense, unless it is clearly charged

in the complaint or information. Constitutionally, he has a right to be
informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him. To
convict him of an offense other than that charged in the complaint or
information would be violative of this constitutional right. Indeed, the
accused cannot be convicted of a crime, even if duly proven, unless it is
alleged or necessarily included in the information filed against him.”

8. As stated in Section 10 Rule 110 of the Rules of Court, the place of the
commission of the offense must be alleged in the information, to wit:

“Sec 10. Place of commission of the offense. – The complaint or

information is sufficient if it can be understood from its allegations that the
offense was committed or some of its essential ingredients occurred at some
place within the jurisdiction of the court, unless the particular place where
it was committed constitutes an essential element of the offense charged or
is necessary for its identification.”

9. In the present case, the Prosecution fails to indicate the place the crime was
committed which is a material fact to establish the connection of the accused in
the alleged crime. The negligent or omission of the place of the crime would lead
to the question for the jurisdiction of the court trying the case.

10. The case was filed in the Quezon City alleging having jurisdiction of the crime
committed but nothing on the body of the information states that the incident
happened somewhere in the place of Quezon City.

______________________

1. People vs. Manalili, G.R. No. 121671, 294 SCRA 220, August 14, 1998.
11. The purpose of the provision of the rule will be defeated if this information
will be allowed in court.

12. Therefore to fully inform the accused of the true charges against him and in
effect to enable him to intelligently prepare for his defenses, the information must
state the essential facts, the nature and cause of the accusation against him
which this information is lacking, hence a ground for a motion to quash
information because the facts charged in the information does not conform
substantially and the court trying the case has no jurisdiction over the offense
charged.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing, it is most respectfully prayed

for that the information be quashed on the ground that the facts charged in the
information do not constitute and offense and that the court trying the case has
no jurisdiction over the offense charged.

Other reliefs just and equitable are likewise prayed for.

Caloocan City, December 21, 2021.

Atty. BIENVENIDO CORNEJO

Counsel for the Accused
MCLE Compliance No. VI-0014, 28 January 2021
IBP No. 22222 January 2021
Roll No. 1111