REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

NATIONAL CAPITAL JUDICIAL REGION

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,

Plaintiff,
Crim. Case No.
--versus--

Accuseds.
x---------------------------------------------x

MOTION TO QUASH AD CAUTELAM

ACCUSEDS, through the undersigned counsel and by way of

special appearance, unto this Honorable Court, most respectfully
states that:

1. On, an Information for Violation of the Revised Penal

Code for Estafa and for the violation of Section 10 of Republic Act
No. 9711, otherwise known as the “Food and Drug Administration
(FDA) Act of 2009” amending Section 11 (a) and (k) of R.A. No. 3720,
was filed by the Duty Inquest Officer Assistant City Prosecutor

2. Prior to such inquest, the Accuseds were arrested and

detained by operatives of the

3. During the Inquest, the Accuseds, through counsel,

immediately questioned the legality of the former’s arrest as the
arrest was an unlawful warrantless arrest.

4. The records of the assailed Information states that the

arrest of the Accuseds were based on the “complainant’s reports”
wherein the police conducted a “follow-up” operation on

a. It was revealed in the report that the alleged offenses were

committed on.

b. In the said “follow-up” operation after, the private

Complainant was accompanied by the elements of was the
former “immediately and positively identified” the Accuseds

c. Upon the Complainant’s identification, the police

immediately identified themselves and asked for FDA-issued
permits and documents such as the License to Operate,
 Certificate of Medical Device Notification, or Certificate of
Product Registration, among others, for which the Accused
failed to produce.

d. Upon their failure to produce the said documents, the

Accuseds were immediately arrested by the elements of

8. Despite these valid objections raised by the Accuseds,

the Duty Inquest Prosecutor, as approved by his nonetheless,
decided to file the aforementioned Information.

9. The assailed Information could be read as follows:

10. In the Inquest Disposition/Resolution, the Duty Inquest

Prosecutor recommended the filing of the Information for the Violation
of RA 9711 and Estafa on the basis that the Accuseds were arrested
without a warrant by officers who were “duly notified of the
circumstances surrounding the commission of the crimes charged
which has just been committed.”

11. The Accuseds beg to disagree with the findings and

disposition of the Duty Inquest Prosecutor.

This Honorable Court has no

jurisdiction over the person of
the Accuseds as the latter’s
arrest was not made by a lawful
warrantless arrest. In effect, all
articles and items seized by
virtue of this arrest is
inadmissible as evidence in
court.

1. Under Section 5, Rule 113 of the Revised Rules of

Criminal Procedure, an arrest without warrant is lawful when:

(a) When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has

committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to
commit an offense;

(b) 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

(c) When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has

escaped from a penal establishment or place where he is

2
 serving final judgment or is temporarily confined while his
case is pending, or has escaped while being transferred
from one confinement to another.

2. In Posadas v. Ombudsman (G.R. No. 131492, September

29, 2000), the killing of Dennis Venturina happened on December 8,
1994. It was only on December 11, 1994 that Chancellor Posadas
requested the NBI's assistance. On the basis of the supposed
identification of two (2) witnesses, the NBI attempted to arrest
Francis Carlo Taparan and Raymundo Narag three (3) days after
the commission of the crime. With this set of facts, it cannot be
said that the officers have personal knowledge of facts or
circumstances that the persons sought to be arrested committed the
crime. Hence, the Court invalidated the warrantless arrest.
(Emphasis supplied)

3. In Mario Veridiano v. People of the Philippines (G.R. No.

200370, June 7, 2017), the Supreme Court held that an unlawful
arrest results into failure to acquire jurisdiction over the person of the
accused and any evidence acquired is inadmissible as evidence in
court, thus:

“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."

4. In the present case, the private Complainants have

alleged that the alleged criminal transactions were consummated on.
Instead of filing a proper criminal complaint against the Accused, the
private Complainants sought the assistance of the elements of when
the Complainants felt that the face shields would not be delivered on
the said date.

5. The Duty Inquest Prosecutor ignored the fact that there

was a lapse of three (3) days from the alleged commission of the
crime was on and the arrest was made. The elements cannot be said

3
to have personal knowledge of the circumstances surrounding the
commission of the crimes charged which has just been committed.

6. Following the ruling in Posadas v. Ombudsman, the arrest

of the elements with the assistance of the private Complainants three
(3) days after the commission of the alleged crime is unlawful.

7. It follows that any evidence acquired because of this

unlawful arrest shall be inadmissible as evidence in court.

8. Since there was not valid arrest, this Honorable Court

lacked jurisdiction over the persons of the Accused and any evidence
acquired must be struck as inadmissible in evidence in court.

The facts charging the

Accuseds do not constitute an
offense because:

(a)The Assailed Information

failed to specifically allege
the ultimate the acts or
omissions constituting
estafa so the Accuseds
may be intelligently
informed of the charges
against them; and

(b) The Assailed Information

does not contain the
proper designation for
estafa as designated in the
Revised Penal Code; and

1. In People of the Philippines v. Sandiganbayan, et,al. (G.R. No.

160619, September 09, 2015), the Supreme Court held that the main
purpose of an Information is to ensure that the accused could be well-
informed of the facts and the acts constituting the offense charged,
thus:

“Sections 6 and 9 of Rule 110 of the Rules of Court

are relevant. They state –

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

4
 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.

xxx

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 circumstances and for the court to
pronounce judgment.

(Emphasis supplied.)

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."

2. In the same case, the Court held that the proper remedy in
cases of such ambiguity is to file a motion to quash before the
Accused enters his plea, thus:

“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. A
motion to quash challenges the efficacy of an
Information and compels the court to determine
whether the Information suffices to require an
accused to endure the rigors of a trial. Where the

5
 Information is insufficient and thus cannot be the
basis of any valid conviction, the court must drop
the case immediately and save an accused from the
anxiety and convenience of a useless trial.”

3. In the present case, it is to be noted that the first part of

the assailed Information specifically refers to the 2nd paragraph (a) of
Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code. This particular paragraph
would seem to imply that the estafa was committed by means of false
pretenses or fraudulent acts executed prior to or simultaneously with
the commission of the fraud by falsely pretending to possess property

4. On the other hand, that second part of the assailed

Information (“the said amount of Php1,850,000.00 which amount
once their possession and with intent to defraud, they
misappropriated, misapplied and converted to their own personal use
and benefit”) alleges failure to deliver. This state implies that the
Accuseds were charged with misappropriation and conversion under
paragraph 1(b) of the same Article 315.

5. The Assailed Information suffers from a great ambiguity.

The Accuseds cannot be reasonably be expected to intelligently
understand the offenses being charged against them because the
elements of estafa by misappropriation is different from estafa by
false pretenses.

6. In addition, the Assailed Information failed to state the

ultimate facts alleging the commission of estafa by misappropriation
and the proper designation of estafa as designated by the Revised
Penal Code.

7. Because of the ambiguity and incompleteness on the

facts, circumstances, and designation which would possibly hold the
Accuseds criminally liable for estafa, the Assailed Information is
substantially defective.

The Assailed Information is a

vague attempt to charge the
Accuseds for more than one
offense as the Information is
both for estafa by
misappropriation and estafa by
false pretenses.

1. Under Section 3 (f), Rule 117 of the Revised Rules of

Criminal Procedure, the accused may move to quash the complaint
or information on the ground that more than one offense is charged.

6
 2. As discussed earlier, the Assailed Information was
worded to charge the Accuseds for two forms of estafa by
misappropriation and estafa by false pretenses by pretending to
possess property.

3. This surreptitious attempt to charge the Accuseds for both

modes of estafa deserves the quashal of this Honorable Court.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is respectfully prayed of

this Honorable Court that an Order be issued:

1. Quashing the Information for Estafa filed against; and

2. Ordering the immediate release of from the custody

Other reliefs just and equitable under the circumstances are

likewise prayed for.

With conformity: