To: Anna Quinn, Attorney

From: Oby Juan, Attorney

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
7TH JUDICIAL REGION
BRANCH 666
CEBU CITY

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,

Plaintiff

Criminal Case No. 14344

---versus--- For: Murder

JOB HUTT
Accused

X--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------///

MOTION TO QUASH INFORMATION

Accused Job Hutt (“Hutt”), through counsel, respectfully moves for

the quashal of the Information dated 8 January 2014 issued by the Office of
the Prosecutor.

PREFATORY STATEMENT

Commenting on the possible invalidity of the arrest made without a

warrant, the Supreme Court cited in the case of People v. Ayangao1:

1
People v. Ayangao, G.R. No. 142356, 14 Apr 2004.
 What constitutes a reasonable or unreasonable warrantless search or
seizure is purely a judicial question, determinable from the uniqueness of the
circumstances involved, including the purpose of the search or seizure, the
presence or absence of probable cause, the manner in which the search and
seizure was made, the place or thing searched, and the character of the
articles procured.2
Accused Hutt was arrested without a valid arrest warrant procured by
an arresting officer from a judge of competent jurisdiction. Moreover, the
arrest of the accused was not even more justifiable since his seizure was not
of one in hot pursuit, in flagrante delicto, stop and frisk, plain view, or in
any of the exceptional cases of warrantless arrest.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

Job Hutt is now facing a pending criminal charge for the murder of
one Amy Dala that happened on the 5th of January 2014. He is arrested in his
home without a warrant of arrest on the 8 th of January 2014 based on the
identification by Jan Go among five photographs of male persons that the
police showed to him the day before Job Hutt’s arrest. He is now currently in
detention and has not yet been arraigned.

Right after Jobb Hutt’s arrest, the police presented him to the media as
the suspect of Amy Dala’s murder. On the same day of his arrest, the police
filed a criminal complaint for murder against Job Hutt with the prosecutor’s
office. Job Hutt signed a waiver of his arrest while the office of the
prosecutor conducted a preliminary investigation. On the 3rd of February
2014, the office of the prosecutor filed a case of murder against Jobb Hutt.

But Jobb Hutt’s mother raised the issue that during the preliminary
investigation, his son is not able to present evidence on his behalf because he
had no counsel at that time. Jobb Hutt is also not notified of the preliminary
investigation proceedings. So Mr. Jobb Hutt’s mother is now engaging our
legal services to defend him in court.

2
People v. Racho, G.R. No. 186529, 3 Aug 2010.
 ISSUE AND ARGUMENT

Accused thus respectfully moves for the Quashal of the Information

dated 8 January 2014 issued by the Office of the Prosecutor, on the
following grounds:

THE COURT DID NOT ACQUIRE

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

In the present case, Job Hutt was arrested in his residence while he
was eating. The police officer arrested Hutt acting on the identification of
Hutt as murderer by one Jan Go who allegedly had personal knowledge of
the crime committed.
The right of the people to be secure against unreasonable searches and
seizures is an inviolable right protected by the Constitution 3. 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.
The law as it presently stands, enumerates the instances when a
warrantless arrest 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:
(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

3
Const. (1987), Art. III section 2.
 (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 is deemed illegal.
The accused Job Hutt could not have been caught committing the
crime in the presence of his arresting officer, as he did not in fact kill Amy
Dala. Nor could the opposition 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 to speak of. Neither was the
accused Job Hutt a fugitive at the time he was arrested. None of the
instances for a valid arrest without warrant under the Rules of Court was
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.4
Thus considering that the only means by which the court acquires
jurisdiction over the person of an accused is either by his 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 person.5 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 Job Hutt.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, considering the manifest illegality of the arrest of

the Accused Job Hutt on 8 January 2014 and the consequent failure of the
court to acquire jurisdiction over the person of the accused, it is respectfully
prayed to this Honorable Court to quash the Information for murder and to
dismiss the criminal charge against him.
4
Rules of Court, Rule 117 sec. 3, par. (b).
5
People v Meris, G.R. Nos. 117145-50 & 117447, 28 Mar 2000.
Other just and equitable reliefs are likewise prayed for.

Cebu City, March 15, 2014.

______________________
Counsel for the Accused
Attorney Oby Juan