REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINESREGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF BULACAN

THIRD JUDICIAL REGIONMALOLOS CITY, BULACAN

Branch 9

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,

CRIM. CASE NO. 345

-versus- -for-

ROBBERY WITH

SERIOUS PHYSICAL INJURIES

JOEY SOTTO and ALLAN MANALO,

Accused.

X--------------------------------------- X

MOTION TO QUASH INFORMATION

COMES NOW, the accused, by counsel and unto this Honorable Court, most respectfully move to quash the information on the grounds that the facts charged do not constitute an offense and lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter.

PREFATORY

“The Constitutional duty of the Court in criminal litigations is not only to acquit the innocent after trial but to insulate, from the start, the innocent from unfounded charges. For the Court is aware of the strains of a criminal accusation and the stresses of litigation which should not be suffered by the clearly innocent. The filing of unfounded criminal information in court exposes the innocent to severe distress. Even an acquittal of the innocent will not fully bleach the dark and deep stains left by a baseless accusation for reputation once tarnished remains tarnished for a long length of time. The expense to establish innocence may also be prohibitive and can be more punishing

especially to the poor and the powerless. Innocence ought to be enough and the business of the Court is to shield the innocent from senseless suits right from the start”.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

1. The accused are indicted for committing the crime of "Robbery with Serious Physical Injuries" that is punished under the provision of Article 294, paragraph 3 of the Revised Penal Code which states that:

"Any person guilty of robbery with the use of violence against or intimidation of any person shall suffer the penalty of reclusion temporal, when by reason or on occasion of the robbery, any of the physical injuries penalized in subdivision 2 of the article mentioned in the next preceding paragraph, shall have been inflicted”.

2. On September 16, 2014, the accused were arraigned and pleaded not guilty to the crime charged.

3. The accused-movants would like to move for the quashal of the information, which said right is anchored in Section 9, Rule 117 of the Rules of Court which states that;

“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 except those grounds provided for in paragraphs (a), (b), (g) and (i) of Section 3 of this Rule”

4. The paragraphs mentioned in the aforecited Rule includes the basis of the foregoing Motion particularly paragraphs (a) that the facts charged do not constitute an offense and (b) lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter.

ARGUMENTS

The “Amended Information” is defective, the facts charged do not constitute an offense.

-----------------------------------

5. The mode by which the accused assails the validity of criminal information filed against them for insufficiency on its face in point of law, or for defects which are apparent in the face of the information.

6. It is axiomatic that a complaint or information must state every single fact necessary to constitute the offense charged; otherwise, a motion to quash on the ground that it charges no offense may be properly sustained.  The fundamental test in considering a motion to quash on this ground is whether the facts alleged, if hypothetically admitted, will establish the essential elements of the offense as defined in the law.

7. The accused-movants, most respectfully submit that the facts charged do not constitute an offense for the reason that the crime of Robbery with Serious Physical Injuries requires the following elements (a) that there is personal property belonging to another; (b) that there is unlawful taking of that property; (c) that the taking is with intent to gain; and (d) that there is violence against or intimidation of persons or force upon things; and (e) that in consequences of the injuries inflicted, lost the use of speech or the power to hear or to smell, or shall have lost an eye, a hand, a foot, an arm or a leg or shall have lost the use of any of such member, or shall have become incapacitated for the work in which she was therefore habitually engaged. Consequently, the jurisdiction over the offense charged cannot be determined on the basis of recitals of facts in the information.

8. The prosecution failed to establish that the accused used violence, intimidation or force in carrying away the private complainant’s bag. Moreover, in robbery, there must be an unlawful taking or apoderamiento, which is defined as the taking of items without the consent of the owner, or by means of violence against or intimidation of persons, or by using force upon things.

9. In the case at bar, the prosecution failed to prove the accused employed force or intimidation on private complainant by instilling fear in his mind so as to compel the latter to give the bag containing the articles allegedly taken. The information merely states that the accused carry away with them the bag; hence, there was no showing that the accused had exerted violence or intimidation on her so as to leave her no choice but to give said bag. 

10. As to the alleged serious physical injuries, there is no allegation in the information of the consequences of the injuries inflicted, neither a medical record of the private complainant attached in the said information.

11. Considering the attendant circumstances, the elements of Robbery with Serious Physical Injuries have not been established in the herein case; hence, the accused should be acquitted of said charge.

The Regional Trial Court has no jurisdiction over the offense charged.--------------------------------------

12. The real nature of the criminal charge is determined not from the caption or preamble of the information nor from the specification of the provision of law alleged to have been violated, they being conclusions of law, but by the actual recital of facts in the complaint or information . . . it is not the technical name given by the Fiscal appearing in the title of the information that determines the character of the crime but the facts alleged in the body of the information.

13. The accused, through the undersigned counsel, respectfully submits that this Honorable Court has no jurisdiction over the offense charged. Considering that the elements of robbery with serious physical injuries were not established in the information there being no allegations that the private complainant, in consequences of the injuries inflicted, lost the use of speech or the power to hear or to

smell, or shall have lost an eye, a hand, a foot, an arm or a leg or shall have lost the use of any of such member, or shall have become incapacitated for the work in which she was therefore habitually engaged.

14. Consequently, the jurisdiction over the offense charged cannot be determined on the basis of recitals of facts in the information.

P R A Y E R

WHEREFORE, premises considered, in the interest of justice and to uphold the rule of law, the accused, JOEY SOTTO and ALLAN MANALO respectfully prays that the information filed against them BE QUASHED; and that this case BE DISMISSED.

Other forms of relief that are just and equitable under the premises are also prayed for.

Malolos City, Philippines, September 22, 2014.

Atty. Eloisa MercadoRoll of Attorneys No. 12345MCLE ExemptPTRNo.6789/12-01-2012/Malolos City IBP No. 09876/10-01-2012/Malolos City

Atty. Rudthen MendozaRoll of Attorneys No. 67890MCLE Compliance No. II-12345PTR No.1234/10-01-2012/Malolos City IBP No. 09801/01-24-2012/Malolos City

Atty. Gloridel TuazonRoll of Attorneys No. 033186MCLE Compliance No. 031385PTRNo.6613/11-01-2012/Malolos City IBP No. 102905/09-20-2012/Malolos City

Copy Furnished through Personal Service:

Honorable Branch Clerk of CourtRegional Trial Court- BulacanBranch 9

Atty. Benedict John AureOffice of the Provincial Prosecutor

Atty. Anna Dominique GuisonOffice of the Provincial Prosecutor

Atty. Susan MangilitOffice of the Provincial Prosecutor

NOTICE OF HEARING

The Branch Clerk of Court

Branch 9, RTC-Bulacan

Greetings:

Please take notice that the foregoing Motion for shall be

submitted for the consideration and approval of the Honorable Court

on Tuesday, 26 September 2014 at 4:00 o’clock in the afternoon or

such other time and date most convenient to this Honorable Court

without further arguments.

Atty. Eloisa MercadoLead Counsel for the Accused