PEOPLE OF TH PHILLIPINES,
Plaintiff
Criminal Case No. 12345
---versus---
For: Murder
JOB HUTT
Accused
X----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------///
MOTION TO QUASH THE VALIDITY OF THE ARREST AND
REGULARITY OF PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION WITHOUT
ACCUSED HAVING COUNSEL
(Accused) Job Hutt (Hutt) through counsel, and unto this
Honorable Court, most humbly and respectfully files this Motion to
Quash and states that:
PREFATORY
It is but a duty of public officers to follow the orderly
processes required by the Constitution when in making arrests.
Republic Act no. 7438 gives value the dignity of every human
being and guarantee full respect for human rights. That it is in this law
that provides for the rights of those accused of a crime or detained.
In Section 2 it provides that:
Rights of person Arrested, Detained or under Custodial
Investigation; Duties of Public Officers(a) Any person arrested, detained or under custodial
investigation shall at all times be assisted by counsel.
(b) Any public officer or employee, or anyone acting under his
order or his place, who arrests, detained or investigates any
person for the commission of an offense shall inform the latter,
in language known to or understood by him, of his rights to
remain silent and to have competent and independent counsel,
preferably of his own choice, who shall at all times be allowed
ISSUES
1. The arrest of Job Hutt without a warrant under circumstances
that do not justify a warrantless arrest renders this proceeding
void.
2. The preliminary investigation conducted in this case is in
serious violation of the constitutional right of due process of the
accused, Job Hutt.
ARGUMENTS
THE ARREST WITHOUT WARRANT OF JOB HUTT DOES NOT
FALL IN ANY OF THE PROVISION IN THE RULES OF COURT,
RULE 113 AS STATED:
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 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.
Where in letter a, the arresting officer was not at the crime
scene during the alleged murder of Amy Dala last January 5, 2014.
And based on the facts the crime was committed on said date while
the unlawful arrest was on January 8, 2014. He could not have been
there to attest that Job Hutt was the person who murder Amy Dala,
which does not give him the right to arrest him the next day without,
warrant.
In letter b, the arresting officer has no personal knowledge of
the facts that Job Hutt committed the crime. He was not present
during the commission of crime and only knew of Job Hutt when a
witness identified Hutt as the murderer. One cannot be justified on the
belief that a person committed the crime because of one witness. And
in fact the identification by the prosecution witness was attended with
irregularity considering that Job Hutt was identified merely from
among the five photographs presented by the police officers. This
Here, Job Hutt upon unlawful arrest was then filed a criminal
complaint for the murder of Amy Dala while the preliminary
investigation conducted by the prosecutors office was done at the
same time. Though there is an exception that a preliminary
investigation is not required as in sec. 7 of Rule 112 of the Rules of
Court:
When accused lawfully arrested without warrant. When a
person lawfully arrested without warrant involving an offense
which requires a preliminary investigation, the complaint or
information may be filed by a prosecutor without need of such
investigation
But this exception does not apply in this case since the arrest
without warrant was unlawful; therefore there is need of preliminary
investigation before one can file a criminal complaint.
As Justice Ynares-Santiago put it in Sales v. Sandiganbayan:
While the right to preliminary investigation is a statutory rather
than constitutional in its fundament, it is a component part of due
process in criminal justice. The right to have a preliminary
investigation conducted before being bound over to trial for criminal
offense and hence formally at risk of incarceration or some other
penalty is not a mere formal or technical right; it is substantive right.
To deny the accuseds claim to a preliminary investigation would be to
deprive him of the full measure of his right to due process.
There is a big difference in doing it the preliminary investigation
before the complaint and in doing both at the same time.
The purpose of a preliminary investigation is to secure the
innocent against hasty or oppressive prosecution and to protect him
from an open and public accusation of a crime. What was done here
in this case is of the opposite; instead Job Hutt was presented to the
media as the suspect before a preliminary investigation was
conducted.
And in Sec 12, Art 111 of the 1987 Constitution
Any person under investigation for the commission of an
offense shall have the right to be informed of his rights to
remain silent and to have competent and independent counsel
preferably of his own choice. If the person cannot afford the
services of counsel, he must be provided with one. These rights
cannot be waived except in writing and in the presence of
counsel.
In the same day of Job Hutts arrest preliminary investigation
was conducted without being notified of his rights. It proceeded
without him having counsel.
PRAYER
WHEREFORE, (Accused) Job Hutt respectfully prays to the
Honorable Court to quash the Information and to dismiss the criminal
charge against him.
Other forms of relief that are just and equitable under the
premises are prayed for.
Cebu City, March 15, 2014
_________________________
Counsel for the Accused
Karina Marie T. Pepito
PEOPLE OF TH PHILLIPINES,
Plaintiff
Criminal Case No. 12345
---versus---
For: Murder
JOB HUTT
Accused
X---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------///
OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO QUASH
Plaintiffs People of the Philippines, through counsel, and unto this
Honorable Court, most humbly and respectfully submit this
Memorandum of Law in opposition to Job Hutts Motion to Quash the
validity of his arrest and regularity of the preliminary investigation
without having counsel.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
On January 8, 2014 the police arrested Job Hutt without
warrant of arrest. The day before the arrest, January 7, 2014 at the
police office, a witness named Jan Go identified Job Hutt as Amy
Dalas shooter. Jan Go identified Job Hutt among five photographs of
male persons that the police showed him.
The following day, January 8, 2014 acting on the information
supplied by Jan Go the police arrested Job Hutt in his residence while
eating. Right after Job Hutts arrest, the police presented him to the
media as the suspect of Amy Dalas murderer. On the same day of
the arrest, the police filed a criminal complaint for murder against Job
Hutt with the prosecutors office. Job Hutt signed a waiver of his
arrest while the office of the prosecutor conducted a preliminary
investigation.
On February 3, 2014 the office of the prosecutor file a case of
murder against Job Hutt.
It may be that the police officers were not armed with a warrant
when they apprehended accused appelant. The warrantless arrest,
however, was justified under Section 5 (b), Rule 113 of the 1985
Rules of Criminal Procedure providing that a peace officer may,
without a warrant, arrest a person when an offense has in fact just
been committed and he has personal knowledge of facts indicating
that the person to be arrested has committed it.
Thus, Hot Pursuit Arrests or those lawful arrests contemplate by
Rule 113, Sec. 5(B), as Justice Panganiban stated in his concurring
opinion in People v. Florencia Doria:
While the law enforcers may not actually witness the
execution of acts constituting the offense, they must have direct
knowledge or view of the crime right after its commission. They
should know for a fact that a crime was committed. And they must
also perceive acts exhibited by the person to be arrested, indicating
that he perpetrated the crime. Again, mere intelligence information
that the suspect committed the crime will not suffice. The arresting
officers themselves must have personal knowledge of facts showing
that the suspect performed the criminal act. Personal knowledge
means actual belief or reasonable grounds of suspicion, based on
actual facts, that the person to be arrested is probably guilty of
committing the crime.
From the facts of the case, the arresting officers knew that a crime
was committed. It was two days of investigation after the murder of
Amy Dala when a witness named Jan Go identified Job Hutt among
five photographs presented to him by the police. And with that instant
the personal knowledge gain through the course of the investigation
gave reasonable grounds on the arresting officers to believe that a
crime have been committed.
In People v. Pineda, the Court explained the rules in proper photographic
identification procedure, to wit:
The first rule in proper photographic identification
procedure is that a series of photographs must be shown,
and not merely that of the suspect. The second rule directs
that when a witness is shown a group of pictures, their
arrangement and display should in no way suggest which
one of the pictures pertains to the suspect.
In the case of People v. Burgos, it was held that:
The fact of the commission of the offense must be undisputed.
The test of reasonable ground applies only to the identity of the
perpetrator.
PRAYER
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs, The People, respectfully pray to
the Honorable Court to deny the Motion to Quash for lack of
merit.
The people likewise respectfully pray for other just and
equitable relief.
Cebu City, March 15, 2014
_____________________
Counsel for the Plaintiff
Karina Marie T. Pepito