Motion To Quash Information

Republic of the Philippines
MUNICIPAL CIRCUIT TRIAL COURT

BORBON-TABOGON
Borbon, Cebu
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, CRIM. CASE NO. 3435

Plaintiff, FOR: VIOLATION OF PD 1602
As Amended by R.A. No. 9287
-versus-
MARVIN OBDAMEN MURILLO,

POMPIO MONTEALTO MONTUERTO
And DOMINGO TRADIO QUILATON,
Accused.
x---------------------------------------------------/
MOTION TO QUASH INFORMATION

Accused-movant MARVIN OBDAMEN MURILLO, through the
undersigned counsel, unto this Honorable Court, most respectfully avers that:
1. Accused stands charged with violation of P.D. 1602 or the ______
under the Information which alleged:
“That on the 9th day of May 2021, at around 2:30 in the afternoon,
at Sitio Kimod, Brgy. Bongdo Proper, Municipality of Borbon,
Province of Cebu, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this
Honorable Court, the above-named accused, conspiring,
confederating and mutually helping with one another, knowingly
and without lawful purpose whatsoever, being not
licensed/authorized by law, did then and there willfully, unlawfully
and feloniously take part in illegal gambling known as cockfighting
“tigbakay”, a game of chance wherein wager money or bets are at
stake or made and confiscated from their possession the
following: One (1) piece live fighting cock with gaff, two (2) pieces
signage reading “INILOG” and “BIYA” and cash amounting to
Three Hundred Seventy (P370.00) Pesos in different
denominations used as bet money.
CONTRARY TO LAW.”
2. Based on the above-quoted Information, it appears that the

allegations in the Information is glaringly defective and should be
quashed on the following grounds:
a. The Court has no jurisdiction over the person of the accused,

the latter having been arrested without a valid warrant of arrest
nor the arrest was validly done under a warrantless arrest;
b. That the Information charges the accused of more than one

offense, in violation of Sec. 13, Rue 110 f the 2000 Rules of
Criminal Procedure.1
c. Violative of the rules of Criminal Procedure, particularly Sec. 11,

Rule 126, where it provides that “The officer/s seizing property
under the warrant must give a detailed receipt for the same to
the lawful occupant of the premises in whose presence the
search and seizure were made, or in the absence of such
occupant, must, in the presence of at least two witnesses of
suuficient age and discretion residing in the same locality, leave
a receipt in the palce in which he found the seized property.
1
SEC. 13. Duplicity of the offense. – A complaint or information must charge only one offense, except when the law
prescribes a single punishment for various offenses.
d. The Rule above-mentioned is clear and unambiguous. A proper
inventory of the seized items is required. The arresting officers
dismally failed to comply with the provisions of the Rule.
Assuming for the sake of argument that we were arrested, and
the arresting officers confiscated the ff. The arresting officers
did not conduct inventory of the seized items in our presence.
There were no markings made on the seized items. What the
arresting officers attached as part of their evidence are the
pictures of the seized items together with the respondents. Be
that as it may, the picture falls short of what is required; the
inventory must be in the presence of the respondents and a
copy of the said inventory must be furnished to respondents.
Aside from the fact that there was no marking and inventory
made, the arresting officers failed to attached a report on the
proper turn-over of the seized items from the arresting officers
to the evidence custodian. The Chain of Custody in the
movement of the seized items was broken.
e. In the case of Pp vs. Gayoso, G.R. No. 206590, March 27, 2017,
The Supreme Court defined Chain of Custody as “duly recorded
authorized movements and custody of seized drugs or
controlled chemicals or plant sources of dangerous drugs or
laboratory equipment of each stage, from the time of
seizure/confiscation to receipt in the forensic laboratory to
safekeeping, to presentation in court for destruction.
f. Just like in drug related cases, the chain of custody rule must be
strictly observed in aall seized itmes just like in this case. The
observance of the chain of custody rule is mandatory as to
preserve the integrity of the seized items and to cast doubt that
the seized items were altered and more so fabricated. The
moment an arresting officer seized an item, an inventory must
be conducted in the presence of the respondent. In the
inventory stage, the arresting officers must make a marking of
the seized item to delineate it from others.
3. A cursory glance of the assailed Information readily shows that the
accused was being charged with two (2) separate offenses under one
criminal Information, despite the fact that the two alleged incidents
arose from one occasion. Such improper merger of two separate
offenses is highly prejudicial to the accused unless this Honorable
Court declares the said defective Information as invalid and
consequently dismissed.
4. Moreover, the said defective Information alleged:
“xxxx-------- the ccuse, with intent to kill, shot xxxx several times,xxx”
In effect, the accused were charged with several distinct and separate
crimes, because of the phrase “several times”. There is therefore an
obvious duplicity of charges which accused-movant seeks to avoid.
5. In one analogous case, the Supreme Court held that where in

describing the offense of murder with double less serious physical
injuries, the information states that appellant “feloniously attack,
assault and shoot for several times the victims,” it in effect charged
the accused with several distinct and separate crimes, as it is the
allegations or actual recitals in the Information rather than the
technical description of the crime that controls.2 Likewise, in the case
of People v. Ducay,3 THE Supreme Court ruled that several victims
dying from separate shots constitute separate offenses although
charged only in one Information.
6. In People v. Palijon, et al.,4 citing People v. Pamintuan,5 the Supreme

Court held that the physical injuries committed during or on occasion
of robo con homocidio, are absorbed therein, irrespective of the
number of homicides or physical injuries committed.
2
People v. Peralta, 193 SCRA 9, Januray 18, 1991.
3
225 SCRA 1.
4
343 SCRA 486.
5
222 SCRA 716.
7. In the case at bar, both the alleged killing and the physical injuries
described in the Information were perpetrated during the alleged
robbery with the objective of removing both opposition and
witnesses to the robbery. The physical injuries allegedly inflicted
against complainant, and the alleged killing of Juanito and Gary
should be merged in the composite, integrated whole of robbery with
homicide – it being clear that both the killing and physical injuries
were perpetrated with the end in view of removing all opposition to
the robbery, suppressing the relevant evidence or both. 6
Thus, it is respectfully submitted that insofar as the allegation as to

the alleged Frustrated Homicide of private complainant, there should
be no separate charge for the same, considering that the same arose
of and is deemed absorbed in Robbery with Homicide.
8. Finally, accused was illegaly arrested as revealed by the Joint Affidavit

of the arresting officers namely, _______________-. Noteworthy, that
the alleged Robbery incident occurred on ___, whereas the
warrantless arrest of accused-movant was effected by virtue of a
follow-up operation conducted by the police only on ___ 2 days after.
Surely, the alleged follow-up operation of the arresting team that led
to the warrantless arrest of accused could not be stretched beyond
what the Constitution and Rules of Court have empowered our law
enforcement officers. Said follow-up operation that led to the
supposed warrantless arrest of accused could not be interpreted as a
“hot-pursuit”. Hence, the apprehension of accused was improper for
inquest investigation. On this ground, the Information should likewise
be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction of this Honorable Court over the
person of the accused.
PRAYER
6
People v. Lascuna, 225 SCRA 286, 404, (1993).
WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is most respectfully prayed
of this Honorable Court that the Information be QUASHED for having
duplicity of offenses and for lack of jurisdiction of this Honorable
Court over the person of the accused.
Other reliefs that are just and equitable under the premises are
likewise prayed for.
NOTICE OF HEARING
The Branch Clerk of Court
MUNICIPAL CIRCUIT TRIAL COURT
BORBON-TABOGON
Borbon, Cebu
GREETINGS:
Please include the foregoing motion in the Court’s calendar of cases for
___ at ___, for the consideration and resolution of the Court.
ATTY. CONCEPCION T. CEJANO
Hon. ____
Asst. Provincial Prosecutor
Office of the Provincial Prosecutor
Cebu Province
GRETTINGS:
Please take notice that the undersigned will submit the foregoing motion
on ____ for the consideration and resolution of the Honroable Court.
Copy furnished:
PRELIMINARY STATEMENTS
1. Ako ang respondent sa criminal case no.____ nga gi file nil ani >>>>>,
kuno sa paglapass sang P.D. 1602, kag naga sumiter ako sa akong
affidavit. (I am the respondent in criminal case no. ___ filed by _____, for
the alleged violation of P.D. 1602, and I am submitting this Judicial
Affidavit in support of my Motion to Quash the Information and dismiss
the case.
ANSWER AND DEFENSES TO THE
ALLEGATIONS OF THE COMPLAINT
2. Wala ako nakalapas sa illegal nga pagsugal sa ilaang gipasaka nga
sumbong batok nako niadtong petsa ____, adlaw nga Dominggo, sa ika 2
sa hapon. (I did not violate the law on illegal gambling on ___, Sunday, to
conduct cockfighting in Sitio Quimod, Bongdo Proepr, Borbon, Cebu.)
3. Nagasumpa ako6y

Motion To Quash Information

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Motion To Quash Information

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Motion To Quash Information

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Republic of the Philippines

MUNICIPAL CIRCUIT TRIAL COURT

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, CRIM. CASE NO. 3435

MARVIN OBDAMEN MURILLO,

MOTION TO QUASH INFORMATION

2. Based on the above-quoted Information, it appears that the

a. The Court has no jurisdiction over the person of the accused,

b. That the Information charges the accused of more than one

c. Violative of the rules of Criminal Procedure, particularly Sec. 11,

4. Moreover, the said defective Information alleged:

5. In one analogous case, the Supreme Court held that where in

6. In People v. Palijon, et al.,4 citing People v. Pamintuan,5 the Supreme

Thus, it is respectfully submitted that insofar as the allegation as to

8. Finally, accused was illegaly arrested as revealed by the Joint Affidavit

ATTY. CONCEPCION T. CEJANO

You might also like