Republic of the Philippines REGIONAL TRIAL COURT SECOND JUDICIAL REGION BRANCH 6 Province of Cagayan PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, -versus- CRIMINAL CASE NO: For: Parricide ELMER SANTOS Y DURAN, Accused. MOTION TO QUASH INFORMATION COMES NOW accused ELMER DURAN SANTOS, by counsel and unto this Honorable Court, most respectfully move to quash the information filed against him, to wit: 1. OnSeptember 8, 2022, the Office of the City Prosecutor of Aparri, Cagayan approved the information and resolution in NPS-II- Qla-INQ-12H-00123 which charges the accused of the crime of Parricide. The information approved by the Office of the City Prosecutor states as follows: “That on or about the 6'day of SEPTEMBER 2022, or thereabout, at #68 Dupaya St, Bagumbayan, Lal-lo, Cagayan, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this ‘Honorable court, the above-named accused ELMER DURAN SANTOS, with the intent to kill, willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously attack and stab his legitimate spouse, MARINETTE CRUZ SANTOS, 26 times with an ice pick then hacked the left clavicle area with a bolo, thereby inflicting upon the latter, mortal wounds on the chest and the left clavicle that caused MARINETTE CRUZ SANTOS's instantaneous death. CONTRARY TO LAW.” 2. The aforesaid information was raffled before this Honorable Court for trial. However, as will be discussed hereunder, ‘information, September 8, 2022, p. 1.the aforesaid information must be considered null and void due to the illegality of the warrantless arrest; therefore the court trying the case has failed to acquire the jurisdiction over the person of the accused. 3. Under Section 3 of Rule 117 of the Revised Rules of Court, the accused may move to quash the complaint or information on any of the following: (a) That the facts charged do not constitute an offense; (b) That the court trying the case has no jurisdiction over the offense charged; (c) That the court trying the case has no jurisdiction over the person of the accused; (@) That the officer who filed the information had no authority to do so; (@) That it does not conform substantially to the prescribed form; (f) That more than one offense is charged except when a single punishment for various offenses is prescribed by law; (g) That the criminal action or liability has been extinguished; (h) That it contains averments which, if true, would constitute a legal excuse or justification; and (@ That the accused has been previously convicted or acquitted of the offense charged, or the case against him was dismissed or otherwise terminated without his express consent. (Emphasis supplied) 4. Anaccused may move for the quashal of the complaint or information before entering his plea.?The failure of the accused to assert any ground of a motion to quash before he pleads to the complaint or information, either because he did not file a motion to quash or failed to allege the same in said motion, shall be deemed a waiver of any objections based on the grounds provided for in paragraphs (a), (b), (g), and (i) of Section 3 of Rule 117 of the Rules of Court? 5. This motion to quash merely admits hypothetically the allegations in the Information and in the Resolution of the Public Prosecutor in order to show that the Information herein filed is defective, oppressive, contrary to law and due process, and violative of the constitutional and legal rights of the accused. Thus, no admission, judicial or otherwise, should be imputed upon the accused-movant as to any statement herein stated. Any statement *Section 1, Rule 117, Rules of Court *Section 9, Rule 117, Rules of Court.purporting to admit any factual assertion should be construed as hypothetical. THE WARRANTLESS ARREST IS INVALID. 6. Asa general rule, no person may be detained or taken into custody without a valid warrant of arrest. However, the law allows instances when a person may be validly arrest even without warrant as provided under Section 5, 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; (®) 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 (©) 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. 7. The prosecution banks its case on the ground that the accused was arrested without a warrant in pursuant to Section 5(b) of Rule 113, more commonly referred to as “hot pursuit arrest”. 8. As enunciated in the case of Vaporoso vs. People’, for there to be a lawful and valid warrantless arrest pursuant to Section 5(b) of Rule 113, the following elements must concur, to wit: In warrantless arrests made pursuant to Section 5 (b), Rule 113, it is required that at the time of the arrest, an offense had in fact just been committed and the arresting officer had_personal_knowledge_of facts indicating that the accused had committed it. Verily, under Section 5 (b), Rule 113, it is essential that the element of personal knowledge must be coupled with the element _of immediacy; otherwise, the arrest may be nullified, and resultantly, the items yielded through the search incidental thereto will be rendered inadmissible in consonance with the exclusionary ule of the 1987 Constitution. “Franklin Vaporoso and Joetren Tullik vs. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 224587, July 28, 2020.9. It is respectfully submitted that the arrest and detention of the accused do not fall within the purview of a lawful warrantless arrest. 10. As discussed in the case of Miranda vs. People, personal gathering of information is different from personal knowledge. Similar to the present case, the information received by the arresting officer came from a barangay official who only acted on the information he got from the alleged eyewitness, Mario Olayan. Neither the arresting officer nor the arresting officer has any personal knowledge of the facts which would have led the arresting officers to believe that the accused was the perpetrator of the alleged crime. 11. Accordingly, the prosecution alleged that there was reasonable belief that the accused was the one who committed the crime due to his sudden flight upon being flagged by the arresting officer. 12. As held by the Supreme Court in the case of People vs. Mores’, non-flight of a person does not necessarily mean he is innocent: Flight is indicative of guilt, but its converse is not necessarily true. Culprits behave differently and even erratically in externalizing and manifesting their guilt. Some may escape or flee ~ a circumstance strongly illustrative of guilt ~ while others may remain in the same vicinity so as to create a semblance of regularity, thereby avoiding suspicion from other members of the community. 13. All premises considered, the accused respectfully submits that the court did not validly acquire jurisdiction over his person on the ground that the warrantless arrest conducted against him is unlawful and a patent violation of his constitutional right. PRAYER WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing, it is most respectfully prayed that the information be quashed, the warrantless arrest in relation thereto be nullified, and the accused discharged from the indictment. Other reliefs just and equitable are likewise prayed for. Tuguegarao City, Cagayan: 17 September 2022. “People of the Philippines vs. Ramil Mores, G.R. No. 189846, June 26, 2013.DEFEND THE FERSON LAW OFFICES Counsel for Accused Elmer D. Santos #3321 Ugac Norte, Tuguegarao City, Province of Cagayan 3500 Email: dtf.law.offices@gmail.com By: ae REDEN @ CEDICOL PTR No. 1223334/01-06-22/Cagayan IBP No, 444555/01-17-22/Cagayan MCLE No. VII-0055660/05-05-22/Cagayan. Roll No. 66006 COPY FURNISHED: (by email) OFFICE OF THE CITY PROSECUTOR 3rd Floor, Tuguegarao City Hall ocp.tuguegarao@gmail.com EXPLANATION Due to the current pandemic, and pursuant to the resolutions issued by the Supreme Court, this pleading is filed and served upon the parties electronically. EE REDEN €. CEDICOL