Anda di halaman 1dari 4

Republic of the Philippines

Supreme Court
Lantapan, Bukidnon

People of the Philippines, CRIMINAL CASE NO. 2141-L


-versus- FOR:




COMES NOW defendant MARILOU C. LEDRES, by counsel and unto this Honorable
Court, most respectfully move to quash the information on the ground of failure to refer the case
to the Barangay Lupon under Section 18 of the Revised Rule on Summary Procedure, Sec. 412
of the Local Government Code of 1991, and Administrative Circular No. 14-93..


Defendant Marilou C. Ledres is indicted for allegedly committing the crime of malicious
mischief under Art. 329, par. 1 in connection with Art. 327, both of the Revised Penal Code of
the Philippines. The aforesaid provisions state:
Article 329. Other mischiefs. - The mischiefs not included in the next preceding
article shall be punished:
1. By arresto mayor in its medium and maximum periods, if the value of the
damage caused exceeds 1,000 pesos;
Article 327. Who are liable for malicious mischief. - Any person who shall
deliberately cause the property of another any damage not falling within the terms
of the next preceding chapter shall be guilty of malicious mischief. (Emphasis
Defendant Ledres, however, most respectfully submit that this Honorable Court quash the
information for the reason that under the Revised Rule on Summary Procedure and Sec. 412 of
the Local Government Code of 1991, referral to the Barangay Lupon is a pre-condition of any
complaint or information before the court or any government office for adjudication.
Sec. 1(B)(4) of the Revised Rule of Summary Procedure provide that “[a]ll other
criminal cases where the penalty prescribed by law for the offense charged is imprisonment
not exceeding six months, or a fine not exceeding (P1,000.00), or both, irrespective of other
imposable penalties, accessory or otherwise, or of the civil liability arising therefrom: xxxx
(Emphasis supplied) is governed by the said Rule.
Clearly, the offense as charged against accused Ledres is governed by the Revised Rule
on Summary Procedure. In this connection, Sec. 19 (a), in relation to Sec. 18, of the same Rule
provides that although, generally, a motion to dismiss a complaint or a motion to quash a
complaint or information is prohibited, it provides for exceptions. When the ground raised is lack
of jurisdiction over the subject matter or failure to comply with the preceding section, the Rule
allows the filing of a motion to dismiss a complaint or motion to quash a complaint or
information. This preceding section pertains to the referral of cases governed by the Rule to the
Barangay Lupon concerned. Sec. 18 of the Rule states that “Sec. 18. Referral to Lupon. —
Cases requiring referral to the Lupon for conciliation under the provisions of Presidential
Decree No. 1508 where there is no showing of compliance with such requirement, shall be
dismissed without prejudice and may be revived only after such requirement shall have
been complied with. This provision shall not apply to criminal cases where the accused was
arrested without a warrant.” (Emphasis supplied). The said section of the Rule is clear that the
failure to refer to the lupon concerned is a ground for the dismissal of the complaint, or in this
case, the quashal of the information.
Section 412(a) of the Local Government Code of 1991 also provided a provision of the
same import. The said section provides “Conciliation. - (a) Pre-condition to Filing of
Complaint in Court. - No complaint, petition, action, or proceeding involving any matter
within the authority of the lupon shall be filed or instituted directly in court or any other
government office for adjudication, unless there has been a confrontation between the
parties before the lupon chairman or the pangkat, and that no conciliation or settlement
has been reached as certified by the lupon secretary or pangkat secretary as attested to by
the lupon or pangkat chairman or unless the settlement has been repudiated by the parties
thereto.” (Emphasis supplied).
The Supreme Court in Uy vs. Judge Javellana1 decided that a case which has not been
previously referred to the Lupong Tagapamayapa shall be dismissed without prejudice. A
motion to dismiss on ground of failure to comply with the Lupon requirement is an
exception to the pleadings prohibited by the Revised Rule on Summary Procedure.
(Emphasis supplied).
In the present criminal charges, the complainant attached a Certificate to File Action for
Barangay Case No. 21-16 for recovery of property issued by the Lupong Tagapamayapa of
Poblacion, Lantapan dated April 6, 2016. The alleged acts in the information allegedly occurred

A.M. No. MTJ-07-1666, September 5, 2012
on February 28, 2017. Considering the said circumstances, it is by no stretch of imagination can
it be argued that the attached Certificate to File Action corresponds that of the February 28
alleged incident. A Certificate to File Action can never be issued to a date prior to the occurrence
of the alleged acts in the information. It is plainly contrary to logic and the natural course of
things. Also, the said barangay case pertains to recovery of property and not for malicious
It is also undeniable that both private complainant and accused Ledres are residents of the
same barangay - Barangay Poblacion, Lantapan, Bukidnon - as stated in the judicial affidavit-
complaint of the private complainant. Since the parties are residents of the same barangay of the
same municiplaity, the private complainant’s complaint should have undergone the mandatory
barangay conciliation for possible amicable settlement between the parties, pursuant to Sec. 408
of the Local Government Code of 1991 and reiterated under Administrative Circular No. 14-93
issued by the Supreme Court on July 15, 1993 which provided the guidelines on the katarungang
pambarangay conciliation procedure.
In Agbayani vs. CA2, the Supreme Court emphasized that “[t]he compulsory process of
arbitration is a pre-condition for the filing of the complaint in court. Where the complaint
(a) did not state that it is one of the excepted cases, or (b) it did not allege prior availment
of said conciliation process, or (c) did not have a certification that no conciliation had been
reached by the parties, the case should be dismissed. (Emphasis supplied).
Here, the private complainant attached a Certificate to File Action which does not reflect
the present malicious mischief case. The complaint also failed to show that the instant case is not
one of the exceptions under Administrative Circular No. 14-93. Neither did the complainant
show that indeed confrontation before the Lupon was made.
The case of Chua Keng Sui vs. Judge Mangente3 also reiterated that a dismissal of a case
based on a motion to dismiss grounded on failure to refer to the Lupon is a basic and elementary
rule of procedure.
In Uy vs. Contreras, G.R. No. 111416, September 26, 1994, the Supreme Court ordered
the dismissal of criminal cases against the petitioner therein on the ground of failure to comply
with the pre-condition of referral of disputes to the Lupong Tagapamayapa embodied under Sec.
412 of the Local Government Code of 1991 and further required under the 1991 Revised Rule on
Summary Procedure. The Court in the same case emphasized the vital role which the revised
katarungang pambarangay law plays in the delivery of justice at the barangay level, in promoting
peace, stability, and progress therein, and in effectively preventing or reducing expensive and
wearisome litigation. Parties to disputes cognizable by the lupon should, with sincerity, exhaust
the remedies provided by that law.

2 GR No. 183623, June 25, 2012

AM MTJ-15-1851, February 11, 2105

IN VIEW OF ALL THE FOREGOING, Defendant Ledres submits that the information
be quashed on the ground of failure to refer to the Barangay Lupon concerned as mandatorily
required by Revised Rule on Summary Procedure, the Local Government Code of 1991 and
Administrative Circular No. 14-93.


WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is most respectfully prayed that the information

be quashed.
Reliefs and other remedies equitable, just and proper in the premises are likewise prayed
Respectfully submitted, January 30, 2018, Malaybalay City, Bukidnon.


2nd Floor, Jamstar Bldg., corner
Judge Carillo-San Isidro St.
Brgy 5 Poblacion, Malaybalay City Bukidnon
Counsel for the Accused Marilou C. Ledres



Roll of Attorneys’ No. 67495
PTR No. 6933714/10-JAN-2018/BUK.
IBP O.R. No. 23742/15-JAN-2018/BUK.
Tax Identification No. 496-556-017-000
Exempted from compliance with MCLE for the year 2018

Copy Furnished:


Malaybalay City, Province of Bukidnon