REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT IN CITIES

7TH JUDICIAL REGION
BRANCH 123, CEBU CITY

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,

Plaintiffs

Criminal Case No. 14344

For: Violation of RA 6713

---versus---

JOB HUTT,
Accused

x------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------///

MOTION TO QUASH

(Accused) Job Hutt, through counsel, and unto this Honorable Court, most
humbly and respectfully files this Motion to Quash and states that:

STATEMENT OF FACTS

Job Hutt, our client, was first elected as Mayor in Municipality X IN 2007
and now a private citizen after serving for three terms as Mayor. He is charged by
the Ombudsman-Visayas Graft Prosecutor with a violation of Section 8 in relation
to Section 11 of RA 6713 for non-filing of his SALN in the years 2009 and 2010.
Mayor Job Hutt then, through his former counsel, filed a motion for
reconsideration to the Ombudsman-Visayas resolution and was eventually denied,
after review and approval by the Ombudsman Central Office only last year, 2016.

Mayor Job Hutt has already been arraigned at one of the courts in Cebu City
when he engaged our services on January 2017. His former counsel has suffered a
heart stroke and now incapacitated to represent the mayor.
Mayor Job Hutts case is now at the stage of presentation of second witness for the
prosecution.

ISSUES

1. Whether the Motion to Quash is tenable on the ground of Mayor

Job Hutts right to speedy disposition of cases?
2. Whether the motion to quash can still be raised after arraignment?
 ARGUMENTS AND DISCUSSIONS

Sec. 16, Article 3 of the 1987 Constitution of the Philippines:

All persons shall have the right to a speedy disposition of their
cases before all judicial, quasi-judicial, or administrative bodies.

- This is an absolute provision in which it must be complied with, in

the case at bar, we would definitely use this as an advantage for
our client has the right to a speedy disposition of his case due to
the delay in the Ombudsman preliminary investigation.

Rule 117, (Motion to Quash) of The Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure:

Section 1. Time to move quash At any time before entering his plea, the accused
may move to quash the complaint or information.

The defendant waives the formal objectives to the complaint or information

when the defendant is arraigned and enters his plea before filing the motion to
quash.
But in some cases, a motion to quash may still prosper and may be raised at any
stage of the proceeding if the ground for the motion falls under these
circumstances:
Double jeopardy
Lack of jurisdiction over the offense;
Failure to charge an offense;
Extinction of criminal liability

The amount of time that passed since the filing of the complaint proves
prejudicial to my client. These substantive points taken together already warrant
the dismissal of the case.

Looking at the time and date which have passed, it is obviously shown that
the Ombudsman acted with unlawful delay for having 6 years lapsed before its
denial in the Ombudsman review and approval.

We certainly believed that the Ombudsman failed to prove and explain these
certain causes in the Delay of the case at bar which exceeded its reasonable limits:

The Length of the delay

Reasons for the delay

Assertion or failure to assert such right by the accused; and

Prejudice caused by the delay.

It has been said that justice delayed is justice denied and oftentimes, this
maxim has proven to be true in the Philippine justice system. Our laws do have
safeguards to ensure the prompt and speedy action on all types of legal actions and
cases. The Constitution mandates dispatch not only in the trial stage but also in the
disposition thereof, warranting dismissals in case of violations thereof without the
fault of the party concerned, not just the accused.

The right to a speedy disposition of a case, like the right to speedy trial, is
deemed violated only when the proceeding is attended by vexatious, capricious,
and oppressive delays; or when unjustified postponements of trial are asked for and
secured, or when without cause or justifiable motive a long period of time is
allowed to elapse without the party having his case tried. Equally applicable is the
balancing test used to determine whether a defendant has been denied his right to a
speedy trial, or a speedy disposition of a case for that matter, in which the conduct
of both the prosecution and the defendant are weighed, and such factors as length
of the delay, reason for the delay, reason for the delay, the defendants assertion or
non-assertion of his right, and prejudice to the defendant resulting from the delay,
are considered. Our clients case is currently at the stage of presentation of second
witness for the prosecution therefore it is required to have appropriate action for
our clients favor.

PRAYER

The Above Premises Considered, (Accused) Job Hutt respectfully prays to

the Honorable Court to quash the Information and to dismiss the criminal case
charged against him.

Hob Hutt likewise respectfully prays for other just and equitable relief.

Cebu City, Philippines. March 6, 2017.

Counsel for the Accused:

Atty. Mcvin G. Fernandez

(Associate Attorney)
Lord Val and Associates Law Office
Room 406
143 Allalone Avenue
Municipality X, Philippines
Telefax: 123456
Atty.s Roll No. 16101527