Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
PREFATORY STATEMENT
buy-bust operation the Supreme Court held in the case of People vs.
Ambih1:
1
226 SCRA 84 (1993)
2
arrest was performed after the accused had been duly informed of his
constitutional rights.
that the warrantless arrest was the result of a valid buy-bust operation,
Enforcement Agency (PDEA) broke into his house by breaking open the
money, cellular phones and other valuables from the persons of the
accused and his visitors. The PDEA members then proceeded to haul
Revo, which then brought them to Camp Karingal. The accused and
Richard G. Gomez were not informed of their rights upon their arrest,
2
Const. (1987), Art. III section 2
4
did not in fact sell any illegal drugs. Nor could the PDEA 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 or valid buy-bust operation to speak of. Neither was the accused
instances for a valid arrest without warrant under the Rules of Court
were 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
the voluntary appearance of the accused is that the court does not
3
Rules of Court, Rule 117 sec. 3, par. (b)
4
People v Meris (G.R. Nos. 117145-50 & 117447. March 28, 2000.)
5
than to quash the present information, as the court has not acquired
PRAYER
17 September 2010.
By:
ISRAEL SOGUILON
Roll of Attorneys No. 12345
PTR No. 1234567; 01-05-2010; Pasig City
IBP No. 234567; 01-05-2010; Makati City
COPY FURNISHED:
7
NOTICE OF HEARING
Greetings:
Please take notice that the foregoing Motion will be submitted for
the Court’s consideration and resolution on 24 September 2010 at
8:30 a.m. or as soon thereafter as matter and counsel may be heard.
COPY FURNISHED: