Republic of the Philippines

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT

NATIONAL CAPITAL JUDICIAL REGION
BRANCH 50
QUEZON CITY

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,

Plaintiff, Criminal Case No. Q-10-56789

Violation of Section 5, Article II

-versus- Republic Act No. 9165,

(Comprehensive Dangerous

Drugs Act of 2002)

ROBIN LOPEZ PADILLA,

Accused.

x------------------------------------------------------------------------------x

COMMENT TO THE MOTION TO QUASH THE INFORMATION

Plaintiff, through the Government Prosecutor unto this Honorable Court,

most respectfully submits this Comment and states that:

On August 20 2016, The accused through his counsel filed a motion to

quash the information on the following ground:

1. the court did not acquire jurisdiction over the person of the accused as the

arrest was illegal.

 a. No actual buy-bust operation did in fact take place.

b. The accused and Richard G. Gomez were not informed of their rights

upon their arrest, as well as what offense they were being charged

with.

c. The right of the people to be secure against unreasonable searches

and seizures is an inviolable right protected by the Constitution.

2. Considering the above grounds mention filed by the counsel of the

accused. According to the case of People vs. Garcia, a buy-bust operation is a

kind of operation that has been proven to be an effective way to flush out illegal

transactions that are otherwise conducted covertly and in secrecy. Buy-bust

operation has a significant downside that has not escaped the attention of the

framers of the law. It is susceptible to police abuse, the most notorious of

which is its use as a tool for extortion. In the case People v. Umipang, the

nature of a buy-bust operation necessitates a stringent application of the

procedural safeguards specifically crafted by Congress in R.A. 9165 to counter

potential police abuses.

Accused in criminal prosecutions is presumed innocent until his guilt is

proven beyond reasonable doubt.To overcome the presumption of innocence

and arrive at a finding of guilt, the prosecution is duty bound to establish with

moral certainty the elemental acts constituting the offense. In prosecutions

involving narcotics, the narcotic substance itself constitutes the corpus delicti

of the offense and the fact of its existence is vital to sustain a judgment of

conviction beyond reasonable doubt.

 Under Section 5 of R.A. 9165, the elements that must be proven for the

successful prosecution of the illegal sale of shabu are as follows: (1) the

identity of the buyer and the seller, the object of the sale, and the consideration;

and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and its payment. In this case at bar, the

following elements of sec. 5 of R.A 9165 was not proven.

There was lack of a warrant of arrest. The arrest, search, and seizure

conducted by the PDEA were illegal since it was not supported by a valid

warrant. They thus posit that his right to be secure in their persons, houses,

papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures was violated.

Section 5, Rule 113 of the Rules of Court provides for lawful warrantless

arrests, viz:

Sec. 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;

(b) When an offense has in fact 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 escaped

 from a penal establishment or place where he is serving final

judgment or temporarily confined while his case is pending, or

has escaped while being transferred from one confinement to

another.

Section 5(a) is what is known as arrest in flagrante delicto. For this type of

warrantless arrest to be valid, two requisites must concur: (1) the person to be

arrested must execute an overt act indicating that he has just committed, is

actually committing, or is attempting to commit a crime; and, (2) such overt act

is done in the presence or within the view of the arresting officer. A common

example of an arrest in flagrante delicto is one made after conducting a

buy-bust operation. In this case, the evidence was insufficient to show that the

accused execute an overt act indicating that he just committed, is committing

or is attempting to commit a crime. The evidence also did not proved that the

accused also had done this overt act in the presence or within the view of

arresting officer.

The courts have been exhorted to be extra vigilant in trying drug cases lest

an innocent person is made to suffer the unusually severe penalties for drug

offenses. Accordingly, specific procedures relating to the seizure and custody

of drugs have been laid down in the law (R.A. No. 9165) for the police to strictly

follow. The prosecution must adduce evidence that these procedures have

been followed in proving the elements of the defined offense.

PRAYER
WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed that defendants Motion to Dismiss be

affirmed. All other reliefs, just and equitable under the premises, are likewise

prayed for.

Willie E. Revillame
Counsel for the Plaintiff
Address: Sampaloc, Manila
Roll NO. 123-456
IBP No. 321-467;May 9 2013; Manila
PTR No. 112-234; May 15 2013; Manila

Copy Furnished:

ABCDE LAW OFFICE

Counsel for Accused

20TH Floor SBC Plaza,

Mendiola,

City of Manila

By:

ISRAEL SOGUILON
Roll of Attorneys No. 12345

PTR No. 1234567; 01-05-2016; Pasig City

IBP No. 234567; 01-05-2016; Makati City

 ARTHUR IMANUEL N. ZAPANTA
Roll of Attorneys No. 23456

PTR No. 9876543; 01-05-2016; Pasig City

IBP No. 876543; 01-05-2016; Quezon City

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
NATIONAL CAPITAL JUDICIAL REGION
BRANCH 50
QUEZON CITY

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

Plaintiff,

- versus - CRIMINAL CASE No. Q-10-56789

Violation of Section 5, Article II
 Republic Act No. 9165, (Comprehensive
Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002)

ROBIN LOPEZ PADILLA,

Accused.
x---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x

MOTION TO QUASH INFORMATION

Accused Robin L. Padilla, by counsel, respectfully moves for the quashal

of the Information dated 20 August 2016 issued by Assistant City Prosecutor

Willie E. Revillame on the following ground:

PREFATORY STATEMENT

Commenting on the possible abuses that are prone to occur in a

buy-bust operation the Supreme Court held in the case of People vs. Ambih1:

While buy-bust operation is a recognized means of

entrapment for the apprehension of drug pushers, it does not
always commend itself as the most reliable way to go after
violators of the Dangerous Drugs Act as it is susceptible to
mistake as well as to harassment, extortion and abuse.

1 226 SCRA 84 (1993)

 Accused is no drug pusher. The only reason he is now in the custody of

the police is because he was illegally arrested for reasons he still cannot

comprehend.

Accused thus respectfully moves for the Quashal of the Information dated

20 August 2016 issued by Assistant City Prosecutor Willie E. Revillame, on the

following ground:

THE COURT DID NOT ACQUIRE JURISDICTION

OVER THE PERSON OF THE ACCUSED AS THE
ARREST WAS ILLEGAL.

1. In the present case, the prosecution asserts that the warrantless arrest

of the accused Robin L. Padilla was the result of a validly conducted buy-bust

operation. They likewise claim that the arrest was performed after the

accused had been duly informed of his constitutional rights.

2. Contrary to the claim of the apprehending police officers that the

warrantless arrest was the result of a valid buy-bust operation, no actual

buy-bust operation did in fact take place. As stated by the accused in his

Counter-Affidavit, members of the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency

(PDEA) broke into his house by breaking open the padlock of his garage gate.

Without introducing themselves as PDEA officers or presenting any warrant,

12-15 operatives of the PDEA armed with high-powered firearms then stormed
his home confiscating money, cellular phones and other valuables from the

persons of the accused and his visitors. The PDEA members then proceeded

to haul off various items from within the home of the accused.

3. The accused then recounts that the PDEA operatives then escorted

him and his companion Richard G. Gomez to a Red Toyota Revo, which then

brought them to Camp Karingal. The accused and Richard G. Gomez were not

informed of their rights upon their arrest, as well as what offense they were

being charged with.

4. The right of the people to be secure against unreasonable searches

and seizures is an inviolable right protected by the Constitution2. As such no

person may be validly arrested without the benefit of a warrant of arrest,

except in the specific instances provided by law. Any warrantless arrest done

outside the specific instances provided by law are thus deemed to be contrary

to law and illegal.

5. The law as it presently stands, enumerates the instances when an

warrant without warrant is valid in Section 5 of 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:

2
Const. (1987), Art. III section 2
 (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 serving final judgment or is
temporarily confined while his case is pending, or
has escaped while being transferred from one
confinement to another.

The enumeration contained in section 5 of Rule 113 of the Rules of Court

being exclusive, any arrest without warrant done outside of those specified in

therein are deemed illegal.

9. The accused Robin L. Padilla could not have been caught

committing the crime in the presence of his arresting officers, as he did not in

fact sell any illegal drugs. Nor could the PDEA claim that they had personal

knowledge that a crime had been committed and that the accused had in fact

committed it. This is simply because there was no crime or valid buy-bust

operation to speak of. Neither was the accused Robin L. Padilla a fugitive at

the time he was arrested. None of the instances for a valid arrest without

warrant under the Rules of Court were present. The arrest was thus illegal and

as a consequence, the Court did not acquire jurisdiction over the person of the
accused. As such, the accused may move for the quashal of the information or

complaint filed against him/her as provided in the Rules of Court.3

6. Thus considering that the only means, by which the court acquires

jurisdiction over the person of an accused is either by his/her arrest or

voluntary appearance, the effect of an illegal arrest absent the voluntary

appearance of the accused is that the court does not acquire jurisdiction over

his/her person.4 There is no recourse left other than to quash the present

information, as the court has not acquired jurisdiction over the person of the

accused.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, considering the manifest illegality of the arrest of the

accused Robin L. Padilla on 20 July 2016 and the consequent absence of

jurisdiction by the court over the person of the accused, it is respectfully prayed

that the Information for Violation of Section 5 of Republic Act No. 9165,

otherwise known as The Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002,

issued by Assistant City Prosecutor Willie E. Revillame on 20 August 2016

against the accused be quashed.

Other just and equitable reliefs are likewise prayed for.

City of Manila for Quezon City,

3
Rules of Court, Rule 117 sec. 3, par. (b)
4
People v Meris (G.R. Nos. 117145-50 & 117447. March 28, 2000.)
 17 September 2016.

ABCDE LAW OFFICE

Counsel for Accused
20TH Floor SBC Plaza,
Mendiola,
City of Manila

By:

ISRAEL SOGUILON
Roll of Attorneys No. 12345
PTR No. 1234567; 01-05-2016; Pasig City
IBP No. 234567; 01-05-2016; Makati City

ARTHUR IMANUEL N. ZAPANTA

Roll of Attorneys No. 23456
PTR No. 9876543; 01-05-2016; Pasig City
IBP No. 876543; 01-05-2016; Quezon City
COPY FURNISHED:

THE BRANCH CLERK OF COURT

Regional Trial Court
National Capital Judicial Region
Quezon City, Branch 100

THE HONORABLE ASSISTANT CITY PROSECUTOR

Office of the City Prosecutor
Hall of Justice, Quezon City

NOTICE OF HEARING

Greetings:

Please take notice that the foregoing Motion will be submitted for the
Courts consideration and resolution on 24 September 2016 at 8:30 a.m. or as
soon thereafter as matter and counsel may be heard.

COPY FURNISHED:

THE BRANCH CLERK OF COURT

Regional Trial Court
National Capital Judicial Region
Quezon City, Branch 100

THE HONORABLE ASSISTANT CITY PROSECUTOR

Office of the City Prosecutor
Hall of Justice, Quezon City

PRACTICUM 1

ASSIGNMENT

Submitted to:
Atty. Vivien Ines S. Mostrales

Submitted by:
SITTIE AIYNEE M. BANGON

March 6, 2017