REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT

7TH JUDICIAL REGION
CEBU CITY
BRANCH____

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

Plaintiff,
CRIMINAL CASE NO. ________

-versus-

FOR VIOLATION OF RULE II SECTION 2 (a)

(c) OF COMELEC RESOLUTION NO. 10446

DOMINADOR ACOSTA CANTILAN,

Accused

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

MOTION TO QUASH INFORMATION

Comes now DOMINADOR ACOSTA CANTILAN by the undersigned counsel and unto
this Honorable Court respectfully submits:

That from the facts presented by the Prosecution, the accused herein move for the quashal of
the Information dated Decemeber 19, 2019 on the ground that:

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
Dominador Acosta Cantilan was the result of catching the accused in flagrante delicto
violating Rule II, Section 2 (a)(c) of Comelec Resolution NO. 10446 for allegedly
carrying a 9mm semi-automatic pistol loaded with 6 live ammunitions, without first
obtaining necessary authority to bear, carry, or transport firearms from the Committee
on the Ban on Firearms and Safety Personnel (CBFSP) of the Commission on
Elections (COMELEC).

2. Contrary to the claim of the arresting officer that the warrantless arrest was valid, the
arrest made was illegal as the said arresting officer has no probable cause when it
 incorrectly premised his “suspicious action” on the instances provided for valid
warrantless arrests.

3. The accused then recounts that his simple act of looking for something to buy by
surveying the 7/11 convenience store was largely misplaced to be something of a
suspicious nature thus results to the illegal searches and seizure conducted acquiring
the 9mm semi-automatic pistol.

4. The right of the people to be secure against unreasonable arrests and searches and
seizures is an inviolable right protected by the Constitution. As such no person may be
validly arrested without the benefit of a warrant of arrest, except in specific instances
provided by law. Any warrantless arrest done outside the specific instances are then to
be deemed contrary to law and illegal.

5. The law as it stands, enumerates the instances when an arrest without warrant is valid
under 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 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 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 warrant done outside of those specified in therein are deemed illegal.

6. That the arrest done to accused was illegal considering it does not qualify among the
valid instances. Most specifically, it cannot be said that the suspicious surveillance and
the fidgety nature of the accused cannot equate to police officer acquiring probable
cause to arresting officer.

7. That the arrest done was illegal as merely basing on observing unusual conduct
immediately translating it to suspicious movement is of no moment. Also, that in the
course of observing alleged, “suspicious behavior” the arresting officer aside from
identifying himself as a policeman should also make reasonable inquiries and if nothing
in the initial stages of the encounter serves to dispel his reasonable fear for his own or
other's safety, that is only the time he does the necessary measures as held in Malacat
v. Court of Appeals, 283 SCRA 159.

8. Moreover, aside from the fact that there was no probable cause to effect the
warrantless arrest on the accused, the arresting officer violated the mandate under RA
7438 regarding the assistance of counsel. Accused has no contact of any counsel and
as mandated in RA 7438 if the detained person has no counsel, the detaining person
 shall provide and be assisted with a counsel at all times. The accused recounts that
the entire time he was detained, he was not provided with a counsel at all.

9. All told, the accused by his counsel respectfully submits that since the facts accrued by
the Prosecution do not show criminal liability and admits of the illegally searched and
seized items invalidates the allegation of the possession of firearms, the corpus delicti
must be negated fortifying that the Court has failed to acquire jurisdiction over the
person of the accused.

Wherefore, it is most respectfully beseeched of this Honorable Court that the above
arguments be considered and the case be dismissed since the Court failed to acquire
jurisdiction over the person of the accused.

Respectfully submitted,

ATTY. MARY GRACE G. TAMPUS

Counsel for the Accused

IBP No. 9923145 / 11-27-2020- Cebu

PTR No. 1435223/ 11-27-2020
Roll of Attorneys No. 68384
MCLE Compliance No..V-0001435- 09-25-20197