REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF BULACAN

THIRD JUDICIAL REGION
MALOLOS CITY, BULACAN
Branch 9
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,
CRIM. CASE NO. 345
-versus-

-forROBBERY WITH
INJURIES

SERIOUS PHYSICAL

JOEY SOTTO and ALLAN MANALO,

Accused.
X--------------------------------------- X

MOTION TO QUASH INFORMATION

COMES NOW, the accused, by counsel and unto this

Honorable Court, most respectfully move to quash the
information on the grounds that the facts charged do not
constitute an offense and lack of jurisdiction over the subject
matter.
PREFATORY
The Constitutional duty of the Court in criminal litigations is
not only to acquit the innocent after trial but to insulate, from the
start, the innocent from unfounded charges. For the Court is
aware of the strains of a criminal accusation and the stresses of
litigation which should not be suffered by the clearly innocent.
The filing of unfounded criminal information in court exposes the
innocent to severe distress. Even an acquittal of the innocent will
not fully bleach the dark and deep stains left by a baseless
accusation for reputation once tarnished remains tarnished for a

long length of time. The expense to establish innocence may

also be prohibitive and can be more punishing especially to the
poor and the powerless. Innocence ought to be enough and the
business of the Court is to shield the innocent from senseless
suits right from the start.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
1. The accused are indicted for committing the crime of
"Robbery with Serious Physical Injuries" that is punished under
the provision of Article 294, paragraph 3 of the Revised Penal
Code which states that:
"Any person guilty of robbery with the use of violence
against or intimidation of any person shall suffer the
penalty of reclusion temporal, when by reason or on
occasion of the robbery, any of the physical injuries
penalized in subdivision 2 of the article mentioned in
the next preceding paragraph, shall have been
inflicted.
2. On September 16, 2014, the accused were arraigned and
pleaded not guilty to the crime charged.
3. The accused-movants would like to move for the quashal
of the information, which said right is anchored in Section 9, Rule
117 of the Rules of Court which states that;
The failure of the accused to assert any ground of a
motion to quash before he pleads to the complaint or
information, either because he did not file a motion to
quash or failed to allege the same in said motion, shall
be deemed a waiver of any objections except those
grounds provided for in paragraphs (a), (b), (g) and (i)
of Section 3 of this Rule

4. The paragraphs mentioned in the aforecited Rule

includes the basis of the foregoing Motion particularly
paragraphs (a) that the facts charged do not constitute an
offense and (b) lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter.

ARGUMENTS
The Amended Information
is
defective,
the
facts
charged do not constitute an
offense.
----------------------------------5. The mode by which the accused assails the validity of
criminal information filed against them for insufficiency on its
face in point of law, or for defects which are apparent in the face
of the information.
6. It is axiomatic that a complaint or information must state
every single fact necessary to constitute the offense charged;
otherwise, a motion to quash on the ground that it charges no
offense may be properly sustained. The fundamental test in
considering a motion to quash on this ground is whether the facts
alleged, if hypothetically admitted, will establish the essential
elements of the offense as defined in the law.
7. The accused-movants, most respectfully submit that the
facts charged do not constitute an offense for the reason that the
crime of Robbery with Serious Physical Injuries requires the
following elements (a) that there is personal property belonging
to another; (b) that there is unlawful taking of that property; (c)
that the taking is with intent to gain; and (d) that there is
violence against or intimidation of persons or force upon things;
and (e) that in consequences of the injuries inflicted, lost the use
of speech or the power to hear or to smell, or shall have lost an
eye, a hand, a foot, an arm or a leg or shall have lost the use of
any of such member, or shall have become incapacitated for the
work in which she was therefore habitually engaged.
Consequently, the jurisdiction over the offense charged cannot be
determined on the basis of recitals of facts in the information.

8. The prosecution failed to establish that the accused used

violence, intimidation or force in carrying away the private
complainants bag. Moreover, in robbery, there must be an
unlawful taking or apoderamiento, which is defined as the taking
of items without the consent of the owner, or by means of
violence against or intimidation of persons, or by using force
upon things.
9. In the case at bar, the prosecution failed to prove the
accused employed force or intimidation on private complainant
by instilling fear in his mind so as to compel the latter to give the
bag containing the articles allegedly taken. The information
merely states that the accused carry away with them the bag;
hence, there was no showing that the accused had exerted
violence or intimidation on her so as to leave her no choice but to
give said bag.
10. As to the alleged serious physical injuries, there is no
allegation in the information of the consequences of the injuries
inflicted, neither a medical record of the private complainant
attached in the said information.
11. Considering the attendant circumstances, the elements
of Robbery with Serious Physical Injuries have not been
established in the herein case; hence, the accused should be
acquitted of said charge.
The Regional Trial Court has
no jurisdiction over the
offense charged.
-------------------------------------12. The real nature of the criminal charge is determined not
from the caption or preamble of the information nor from the
specification of the provision of law alleged to have been
violated, they being conclusions of law, but by the actual recital

of facts in the complaint or information . . . it is not the technical

name given by the Fiscal appearing in the title of the information
that determines the character of the crime but the facts alleged
in the body of the information.
13. The accused, through the undersigned counsel,
respectfully submits that this Honorable Court has no jurisdiction
over the offense charged. Considering that the elements of
robbery with serious physical injuries were not established in the
information there being no allegations that the private
complainant, in consequences of the injuries inflicted, lost the
use of speech or the power to hear or to smell, or shall have lost
an eye, a hand, a foot, an arm or a leg or shall have lost the use
of any of such member, or shall have become incapacitated for
the work in which she was therefore habitually engaged.
14. Consequently, the jurisdiction over the offense charged
cannot be determined on the basis of recitals of facts in the
information.
PRAYER
WHEREFORE, premises considered, in the interest of justice
and to uphold the rule of law, the accused, JOEY SOTTO and
ALLAN MANALO respectfully prays that the information filed
against them BE QUASHED; and that this case BE DISMISSED.
Other forms of relief that are just and equitable under the
premises are also prayed for.
Malolos City, Philippines, September 22, 2014.
Atty. Eloisa Mercado
Roll of Attorneys No. 12345
MCLE Exempt
PTRNo.6789/12-01-2012/Malolos City
IBP No. 09876/10-01-2012/Malolos
City

Atty. Rudthen Mendoza

Roll of Attorneys No. 67890
MCLE Compliance No. II-12345
PTR No.1234/10-01-2012/Malolos City
IBP No. 09801/01-24-2012/Malolos
City
Atty. Gloridel Tuazon
Roll of Attorneys No. 033186
MCLE Compliance No. 031385
PTRNo.6613/11-01-2012/Malolos City
IBP No. 102905/09-20-2012/Malolos
City
Copy Furnished through Personal Service:
Honorable Branch Clerk of Court
Regional Trial Court- Bulacan
Branch 9
Atty. Benedict John Aure
Office of the Provincial Prosecutor
Atty. Anna Dominique Guison
Office of the Provincial Prosecutor
Atty. Susan Mangilit
Office of the Provincial Prosecutor

NOTICE OF HEARING
The Branch Clerk of Court
Branch 9, RTC-Bulacan

Greetings:
Please take notice that the foregoing Motion for shall be
submitted for the consideration and approval of the Honorable
Court on Tuesday, 26 September 2014 at 4:00 oclock in the
afternoon or such other time and date most convenient to this
Honorable Court without further arguments.

Atty. Eloisa Mercado

Lead Counsel for the Accused