Republic of the Philippines

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF BOHOL

7th Judicial Region
Branch 47
Tagbilaran City

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,

Plaintiff, CRIM. CASE NOS.: 20126
20127
FOR:
-versus-
VIOLATION OF SECTION 5
AND SECTION 11, ARTICLE
RICARDO ALCAIN y CATAO, II, R.A. 9165
Accused.
x--------------------------------------------/

MOTION TO QUASH INFORMATIONS

COMES NOW, Accused RICARDO C. ALCAIN, through
undersigned counsel, and before this Honorable Court, most
respectfully moves to Quash the above Informations on the ground
that:

THIS HONORABLE COURT HAS NO JURISDICTION

OVER THE PERSON OF THE ACCUSED.

ARGUMENTS/DISCUSSION

1. Section 3(c), Rule 117 of the Rules of Court explicitly

provides:

“Section 3. GROUNDS. – The accused may move to

quash the complaint or information on any of the
following grounds:
xxx
(c) That the court trying the case has no
jurisdiction over the person of the accused;
xxx

2. The Supreme Court, in Valdepeñas v. People,1 held:

“Jurisdiction over the person of an accused is
acquired upon either his apprehension, with or

1 G.R. No. L-20687, April 30, 1966.

1
 without warrant, or his submission to the
jurisdiction of the court.” [Emphasis supplied]

3. Section 5 of Rule 113 of the Rules of Court clearly states

the instances when an arrest without warrant is valid:

“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
(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.
In cases falling under paragraphs (a) and (b) above,
the person arrested without a warrant shall be
forthwith delivered to the nearest police station or jail
and shall be proceeded against in accordance with
section 7 of Rule 112. (5a)” [Emphasis supplied]

4. ACCUSED IS A VICTIM OF A FRAME-UP. There was no

buy-bust operation involving the Accused, as alleged by
operatives of the Tagbilaran City Police Station (TCPS). The
alleged buy-bust never occurred, as there is absolutely no truth
to the story that Accused sold “shabu” to PO3 Clyd Lagumbay,
the officer who supposedly acted as poseur-buyer with the help
of a confidential informant (CI). As a matter of fact, Accused
did not commit any crime and neither was he in the act of
actually committing a crime or attempting to commit a crime in
the presence of the police operatives involved. Accused was
FRAMED then ILLEGALLY ARRESTED by officers of the TCPS
who merely fabricated a story of a buy-bust operation;
5. Jurisdiction over the person of the Accused was therefore never
acquired by this Honorable Court in view of the fact that his

2
 warrantless arrest was illegal, in violation of his constitutionally
guaranteed right against unreasonable searches and seizures
as provided under Section 2, Article III of the Constitution, and
said arrest was not among the instances for a valid warrantless
arrest, as narrated and discussed hereunder.

6. At around 2:00 PM of April 12, 2017, Accused saw around eight

(8) police officers, all in plain clothes and were standing just
outside the house of Police Senior Inspector Jesus Daplin, who
is a neighbor of Accused and whose house is just across the
street. To the Accused, it was a familiar scene because
policemen frequent the house of P/SInsp. Daplin. In fact,
Accused recognized most of the police officers present and
could identify the names of the officers whom he is acquainted
with, particularly Police Officer Lagumbay, Police Officer
Manatad, Police Officer Timbal, Police Officer Lovete, Police
Officer Bibat and Police Officer Catane.

7. Moments later, unsuspecting of any ulterior motive of the

policemen across the street, Accused came out of his house to
buy cigarettes in a nearby store, when completely out of the
blue, two (2) of the policemen, particularly PO3 Jake Catane
and PO3 Richie Lovete, accosted him. PO3 Catane wrapped his
arms around the shoulder of Accused, saying, “Ayaw na lang
palag, Ric.” Simultaneously, in quick movements, PO3 Lovete
handcuffed the Accused who was shocked by the sudden
aggression. But before Accused could react, the two (2) officers
dragged him back towards his house. The rest of the officers
followed and went inside the house of Accused. Inside the
house, Accused was shoved into a seat by PO3 Catane while
the other officers ransacked his house. The officers searched
the entire house – from the living area, dining area, to the
kitchen and the rooms. Nothing incriminating was found.

8. NO BUY-BUST EVER TRANSPIRED due to the fact that Accused

knew of the identities of the officers involved . It is impossible
for a drug transaction to have occurred for the simple reason
that the officer acting as poseur-buyer is supposed to be
operating undercover. For the Accused to sell shabu to a
policeman whom he is acquainted with, particularly PO3
Lagumbay, who claims to have acted as the poseur-buyer, and
then accept payment for it, in the presence of all the police
officers nearby, is A TOTALLY RIDICULOUS STORY.
9. Another proof that NO BUY-BUST WAS EVER CONDUCTED on
the time, date and place as claimed by said officers is the fact
that the Coordination Form and Pre-Operation Report, although
3
 dated April 12, 2017, these documents were, however, only
submitted and/or received by the PDEA on April 13, 2017, or
the day after the alleged buy-bust operation, when the same
should have been submitted and/or received by the PDEA prior
to the conduct of a buy-bust operation.

10. In People v. Salcena,2 the Supreme Court said:

Jurisprudence has firmly entrenched that in the

prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs, the
following essential elements must be proven: (1) THAT
THE TRANSACTION OR SALE TOOK PLACE; (2) the corpus
delicti or the illicit drug was presented as evidence; and
(3) that the buyer and seller were identified.  Implicit in
all these is the need for PROOF THAT THE TRANSACTION
OR SALE ACTUALLY TOOK PLACE, coupled with the
presentation in court of the confiscated prohibited or
regulated drug as evidence. [Citation omitted;
underscoring supplied]

11. Also, in People v. Blanco,3 the high tribunal reiterated:

For the prosecution of illegal sale of drugs to

prosper, the following elements must be proved: (1) the
identity of the buyer and seller, the object, and the
consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and
its payment. WHAT IS MATERIAL IS THE PROOF THAT
THE TRANSACTION ACTUALLY TOOK PLACE, coupled with
the presentation before the court of the prohibited or
regulated drug or the corpus delicti. [Citation omitted;
underscoring supplied]

12. Applying the above-cited jurisprudence in the instant case, it is

unclear as it is implausible that a drug transaction transpired
between PO3 Catane, the poseur-buyer, and the Accused.

13. Worse, the police officers conducted a search of the house of

Accused without any civilian witnesses. In fact, Accused was
restricted at the living room area and he could not observe the
officers conducting a search on the other parts of the house.
No other lawful occupant of the house was present at the time
of the illegal search.

2 G.R. No. 192261, November 16, 2011.

3 G.R. No. 193661, August 14, 2013.

4
 14. In this case, there could have been no valid in flagrante delicto
or hot pursuit arrest preceding the search of the house of
Accused in view of the questionable manner in the arrest of the
Accused after the alleged buy-bust which could not be
established as a valid entrapment operation. As discussed
above, the police officers entered and searched the house of
Accused without any authority to do so.

15. The suspicious conduct of the officers of illegally entering the

house of Accused can never justify the illegal search and the
subsequent arrest. It is clear therefore there was a blatant
violation of Accused’s rights solemnly guaranteed in the
Constitution. Consequently, the exclusionary rule under Section
3 (2) of Article III of the Constitution which provides that “any
evidence obtained in violation of this or the section shall be
inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding,” applies. And,
also effectively, the principle laid down in People v.
Sabadlab,4 to the effect that, “in cases involving violations of
R.A. 9165, the police officers are presumed to have performed
their duties in regular manner,” could not be properly applied
or invoked in these cases.

16. Section 2 and Section 3(2), Article III of the Constitution, are
worth emphasizing:

“Section 2. - The right of the people to be secure in

their persons, houses, papers, and effects against
unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever nature
and for any purpose shall be inviolable, and no search
warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except upon
probable cause to be determined personally by the judge
after examination under oath or affirmation of the
complainant and the witnesses he may produce, and
particularly describing the place to be searched and the
persons or things to be seized.
“Section 3.
“(1) x x x.
“(2) Any evidence obtained in violation of this
or the preceding section shall be inadmissible for
any purpose in any proceeding.”

17. Moreover, the disputable presumption that official duty has

been regularly performed should not hold in favor of the police

4 G.R. No. 186392, January 18, 2012.

5
 officers involved since they have clearly violated the
constitutional rights of Accused. Such was the Supreme Court’s
pronouncement in the case of People v. Benny Go,5 to wit:

“Since no presumption of regularity may be

invoked by an officer to justify an encroachment of
rights secured by the Constitution, xxx, a strict
interpretation of the constitutional, statutory and
procedural rules authorizing search and seizure is
required and strict compliance therewith is
demanded.” [Emphasis and underscoring supplied]

18. In closing, it is also important to point out that by filing this

Motion to Quash, herein Accused has not voluntarily submitted
himself to the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court. In the case
of Jose Miranda, et al. v. Virgilio Tuliao,6 the Supreme
Court held:

“There is, however, an exception to the rule that

filing pleadings seeking affirmative relief constitutes
voluntary appearance, and the consequent
submission of one’s person to the jurisdiction of the
court. This is in the case of pleadings whose prayer is
precisely for the avoidance of the jurisdiction of the
court, which only leads to a special appearance.
These pleadings are: (1) in civil cases, motions to
dismiss on the ground of lack of jurisdiction over the
person of the defendant, whether or not other
grounds for dismissal are included; (2) in criminal
cases, motions to quash a complaint on the ground of
lack of jurisdiction over the person of the accused;
and (3) motions to quash a warrant of arrest. The first
two are consequences of the fact that failure to file
them would constitute a waiver of the defense of lack
of jurisdiction over the person. The third is a
consequence of the fact that it is the very legality of
the court process forcing the submission of the person
of the accused that is the very issue in a motion to
quash a warrant of arrest.” [Emphasis and
underscoring supplied]

PRAYER

5 G.R. No. 144639, September 12, 2003.

6 G.R. No. 158763, March 31, 2006.

6
 WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing, it is most respectfully
prayed of this Honorable Court that this Motion to Quash filed by
Accused RICARDO C. ALCAIN be GRANTED and the items
allegedly seized during his illegal arrest be declared INADMISSIBLE
under the exclusionary rule in Article III, Section 3(2) in relation
to Section 2, Article III of the Constitution.

Other reliefs, just and equitable, are likewise prayed for.

City of Tagbilaran, Philippines, May 15, 2017.

ATTY. ALECK FRANCIS T. LIM

Counsel for Accused
137 (35) F. Rocha St., Tagbilaran City, Bohol
Tel. No. (038) 412-3488 / 501-7144
IBP Lifetime Roll No. 05310
PTR No. 1134768; 12/12/16 (For CY 2017)
Attorney’s Roll No. 50147, TIN 939 849 571
MCLE Compliance No. V-0011578; 11-02-15

REQUEST

THE HONORABLE CLERK OF COURT

Regional Trial Court of Bohol, Branch 47
Tagbilaran City

Greetings:

Please submit the foregoing Motion to Quash Informations for

the Honorable Court’s consideration on May 19, 2017 at 2:00 PM.

Thank you.

ATTY. ALECK FRANCIS T. LIM

7
 NOTICE

OFFICE OF THE CITY PROSECUTOR

City of Tagbilaran
Hall of Justice, Tagbilaran City

Greetings:

Please be informed that the foregoing Motion to Quash

Informations shall be submitted for the Honorable Court’s
consideration May 19, 2017 at 2:00 PM.

Thank you.

ATTY. ALECK FRANCIS T. LIM

Copy Furnished:

City Prosecutor’s Office

Hall of Justice Received by :
________________
Tagbilaran City Date
:_________________