1

Republic of the Philippines

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF MISAMIS ORIENTAL
SPECIAL DRUGS COURT
10th Judicial Region
Branch 25
GOLDRIDGE Bldg., Masterson Avenue corner Macapagal Road
Upper Carmen, Cagayan de Oro City

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

Plaintiff, R-CDO-22-02786-CR

-versus-
FOR: Violation of Section 5
of Article II of
R.A. 9165

JAMEL GURO PAMPA

Accused.
X-----------------------------------------/

URGENT OMNIBUS MOTION TO QUASH INFORMATION FOR

LACK OF JURISDICTION OVER THE PERSON OF ACCUSED WITH
FORMAL ENTRY OF APPEARANCE

Comes now accused Jamel Guro Pampa, through the undersigned

counsel, and unto this Honorable Court respectfully avers that:

PREFATORY STATEMENT

Lack of jurisdiction over the person of an accused is

acquired upon either his apprehension with or without a
warrant, or his submission to the jurisdiction of the court. 1
In the event that the accused is arrested without a warrant,
it has to fall in one of the instances where a warrantless
arrest is allowed, otherwise the Honorable Court has no
power and authority to hear, try and decide a case.

TIMELINESS OF THE MOTION

1
Maximo Valdepañas vs People of the Philippines, G.R No. L-20687
,
 2

Accused is yet to be arraigned and a motion to quash on the ground

of lack of jurisdiction on the person of the accused is seasonably filed prior
to the accused entering a plea. Hence, this motion is filed within the
allowable period.

GROUND FOR THE FILING OF THE MOTION TO QUASH

That the court trying the case

has no jurisdiction over the
persons of the accused.

1. Paragraph (c) of Section 3, Rule 117 of the Revised Rules of Court

provides that:

“Sec. 3. Grounds. – The accused may move to quash the complaint or

information on any of the following grounds:

Xxxx

(c) That the court trying the case has no jurisdiction over the person of the
accused;

Xxxx”

2. In the case of MARIO VERIDIANO Y SAPI VS. PEOPLE OF THE

PHILIPPINES2, the Honorable Supreme Court provides that:

“The invalidity of an arrest leads to several consequences among

which are: (a) the failure to acquire jurisdiction over the person of
an accused; (b) criminal liability of law enforcers for illegal arrest;
and (c) any search incident to the arrest becomes invalid thus
rendering the evidence acquired as constitutionally inadmissible.
(Emphasis supplied)

Lack of jurisdiction over the person of an accused as a result of an

invalid arrest must be raised through a motion to quash before an
accused enters his or her plea. Otherwise, the objection is deemed
waived and an accused is "estopped from questioning the legality of
his [or her] arrest.”

2
G.R. No. 200370, June 07, 2017.
 3

Hence, this motion.

3. In the Inquest Disposition dated August 17, 2022, NPS NO. X-06-
INQ-22H-0945 (copies are already made part of the record of the
case), the Handling Prosecutor found probable cause to indict
accused for he above-captioned offense based primarily on the
Judicial Affidavit of Complaint and Apprehension executed by PCPL
Patrick Albert Lago Buna claiming that a legitimate buy-bust
operation was conducted against accused Jamel Guro Papa on
August 15, 2022 at around 10:22 o’clock in the evening, more or less;

4. Eventually, an Information docketed as R-CDO-22-02786 and dated

August 17, 2022 was filed to this Honorable Court;

5. With all due respect to this Honorable Court, the truth of the matter
is that:

a.) On August 15, 2022 at on or about 5:00 PM, accused was

outside Bloomingdale Subdivision Brgy. Iponan, Cagayan de
Oro City to buy viand for dinner;

b.) All of a sudden, he was approached by PCPL Patrick Albert

Lago Buna(PCPL Buna for brevity) and was told to go with
him;

c.) He was reluctant but PCPL Patrick Albert Lago Buna

introduced himself as a policeman; and eventually, accused
agreed since he was intimidated by the presence of a public
officer;

d.) Accused and PCPL Buna boarded his Blue Toyota Vios with
Plate No. ZNJ5676 and proceeded to Brgy. Nazareth, Cagayan
de Oro City;

e.) Accused was brought to Brgy. Nazareth and not at Brgy.

Macasandig as stated in the Information and Inquest
Disposition;

f.) While at Brgy. Nazareth, accused was informed that he

would be arrested for violation of Republic Act No. 9165.
Accused vehemently opposed this instruction but the police
officers prevailed;
 4

g.) They made it appear that accused was selling a white

crystalline substance alleged as shabu for a consideration of Five
Hundred Pesos (PhP 500.00). Afterwards, they conducted an
inventory of the item that was purportedly witnessed by
Kagawad Mario Bolanio of Brgy. Macasandig, Ms. Menzie
Mones of I-FM Media, and Department of Justice
Representative Erlinda A. Opena;

6. Accused was never validly arrested. There was no buy-bust

operation that transpired. A warrant of arrest was neither issued nor
did it fall in one of the instances where a warrantless arrest is
allowed;

7. Likewise, it did not fall as an in flagrante delicto arrest since there was
no legitimate buy-bust operations that transpired;

8. In the case, PASCASIO DUROPAN AND RAYMOND NIXER

COLOMA vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES 3, the Supreme Court
held that:
“An in flagrante delicto arrest that does not comply with the
overt act test is constitutionally infirm. Two elements must
concur, the person to be arrested must execute an overt act
indicating that he or she has just committed, is actually
committing, or is attempting to commit a crime; and that such
overt act is done in the presence or within the view of the
arresting officer.”

9. Accused should have exhibited an overt act within the vantage point
of the police officers thereby suggesting that he was in possession of
illegal drugs at the time he was apprehended;

10.In the case at bar, accused was not executing an overt act of selling
drugs. There was no legitimate buy-bust operations on the first place.
Instead, accused was brought to Nazareth against his will and there
made it appear that he was selling drugs therein.
PRAYER

IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, it is respectfully prayed to this

Honorable Court that the Information filed against accused to this
Honorable Court in relation to NPS NO. X-06-INQ-22H-0945, resulting
from Inquest Disposition dated 17 August 2022 recommending for the
filing of the above-captioned case be QUASHED and correspondingly
3
G.R. No. 230825, June 10, 2020
 5

ORDER the Officials of the BJMP – Lumbia, to immediately release accused

from their custody.

Correlative thereto, it is also respectfully manifested before this

Honorable Court that the undersigned enters his appearance as counsel of
the Accused and prays that he be furnished with all papers, pleadings and
effects emanating from the court in the address herein indicated below.

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

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED.
Cagayan de Oro City, Philippines. _____ August 2022.

MGC Law Firm

Suite #3, 2nd Floor Rego Bldg. (PNB Carmen Branch)
296 Agoho Drive, Zone 1 Carmen
9000 Cagayan de Oro City
By:

ATTY. CYRIL FRANCIS S. CASIÑO

Counsel for the Accused
Roll No. 70706
IBP No. 1169, Jan. 17 2022
PTR No. 5162066, Jan. 17, 2022
MCLE VI Complied, awaiting issuance of certification
0905-828-9702 / 0999-834-1444
attycyfrancis@gmail.com

Copy furnished by personal service and electronic mail:

The Handling Prosecutor
Office of The City Prosecutor
Cagayan de Oro City
omar_naga@yahoo.com

NOTICE OF HEARING WITH EXPLANATION

THE CITY PROSECUTOR

City Prosecution Office
Cagayan de Oro City
 6

THE CLERK OF COURT COURT

RTC, Branch 25
Cagayan de Oro City

Greetings:

PLEASE take notice that the foregoing URGENT MOTION TO QUASH

INFORMATION is hereby submitted for hearing on a date and time
determined by the Honorable Court based on its next available schedule, or
as soon as counsel may be heard.

ATTY. CYRIL FRANCIS S. CASIÑO