REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

REGIONAL TRIALCOURT
7th JUDICIAL REGION
BRANCH 666
CEBU CITY

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,

Plaintiff

Criminal Case No. 14344

---versus---
For: Murder

JOB HUTT

Accused

X-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------/ / /

BRIEF IN SUPPORT MOTION TO QUASH

Job Hutt (“Hutt”), through counsel, and unto the Honorable Court,
most humbly and respectfully files this Motion to Quash and states:

Commenting on the validity of warrantless arrest, the Supreme Court

held in the case of People v.Sandigan1, to wit:
“The last includes a valid warrantless arrest, for, while as a
rule, an arrest is considered legitimate [if] effected with a valid
warrant of arrest, the Rules of Court recognize permissible
warrantless arrest, to wit: (1) arrest in flagrante delicto, (2) arrest
effected in hot pursuit, and (3) arrest of escaped prisoners.”2

Mr. Hutt was unlawfully and illegally arrested at his residence, while
eating. The only reason why he is detained was because a witness identified
his picture in a group of picture presented by the police to the witness.

Mr. Hutt was not afforded due process during the preliminary
investigation. When the office of the prosecutor conducted the preliminary

1. G.R. No. 200304, January 15, 2014.

2. Ibid.
investigation, Mr. Hutt was asked to sign a waiver without a counsel and was
not able to present any evidence during the preliminary investigation.

Thus, Mr. Hutt respectfully moves for the quashal of the information
dated February 3, 2014 issued by the office of the prosecutor.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

On January 8, 2014, the police arrested Mr. Hutt without a warrant of

arrest. He is currently in detention now and has not been arraigned yet. The
day before the arrest, a witness named Jan Go identified Mr. Hutt as the
shooter of Amy Dala on January 5, 2014. The witness identified Mr. Hutt
from among the five photographs of male persons that the police presented
to him in the police office. Acting on the information supplied by Mr. Go, the
police arrested Mr. Hutt in his residence.

Right after Mr. Hutt’s arrest, the police presented him to the media as
the alleged shooter of Amy Dala’s murder. On the same day of the arrest,
the police filed a criminal complaint for murder against Mr. Hutt with the
prosecutor’s office.

During the preliminary investigation, the office of the prosecutor let Mr.
Hutt signed a waiver of his arrest, without a counsel. Also, he was not able
to submit any evidence during the preliminary investigation.

ISSUES

1. WHETHER THE COURT DID NOT ACQUIRE JURISDICTION OVER

JOB HUTT SINCE THE ARREST WAS ILLEGAL.

2. WHETHER JOB HUTT WAS DENIED DUE PROCESS DURING

PRELIMARY INVESTIGATION.

ARGUMENTS

THE COURT DID NOT ACQUIRE

JURISDICTION OVER JOB HUTT SINCE THE
ARREST WAS ILLEGAL.

The arrest of Mr. Hutt was made without a warrant. The police officer
arrested him on the basis of the testimony of a lone witness named Jan Go
after the latter pointed the picture of Mr. Hutt in a group of picture presented
by the police. Using that lone information, the police officer went to the
residence of Mr. Hutt and arrested him there and then while he was eating.
As such, we can say that the arrest was without probable cause and thus,
illegal and unlawful.

Under Sec.5 of Rule 113 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure,

the law enumerates the instances when a warrantless arrest is valid, to wit:
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; … .

As such, the law is definite and restrictive as to when a warrantless

arrest can be validly made by a police officer. In the recent case of People v.
Sandigan, 3 the Supreme Court established the validity of a warrantless
arrest and that as a rule, absence of a valid warrant of arrest, the Rules of
Court recognize permissible warrantless arrest, in cases of: (1) arrest in
flagrante delicto, (2) arrest effected in hot pursuit, and (3) arrest of escaped
prisoners.

In the case of Mr. Hutt, neither was the arrest in flagrante delicto nor
was it in hot pursuit, much more Mr. Hutt as an escaped prisoner. Simply he
was arrested in information gathered by the police from a lone witness, and
took it as a personal knowledge of the crime.

The prosecution argues that the testimony of their witness is sufficient

enough to give credence to the fact that Mr. Hutt was the alleged shooter for
of Amy Dala. We argue that a testimony of a lone witness is not enough to
be given credence as to the identity of the suspect in the murder. If indeed
the police officer finds the testimony of the witness Jan Go as credible, they
should have applied for an arrest warrant so that a judge with competent
jurisdiction on this case can validate if there is probable cause that indeed
Mr. Hutt is the alleged suspect for the murder of Amy Dala.

To make matters even worst, the warrantless arrest of Mr. Hutt is a

gross violation of his rights against unreasonable search and seizure from
the State.

3. G.R. No. 200304, January 15, 2014.

 The right against unreasonable searches and seizures is safeguarded
by the Bill of Rights under Sec. 2 Article 3 of the 1987 Constitution that, “The
right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, … and no search
warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except upon probable cause to be
determined personally by the judge….” The right of life and liberty, and the
right of security is an inviolable right of every citizen.

The Supreme Court, in the case of Secretary of National Defense v.

Manalo, 4 upheld that the core of this guarantee is the immunity of one’s
person including the extension of his person, which includes houses, against
government intrusion. The guarantee not only limit’s the state’s power over a
person’s home, but more importantly, the protection of privacy and sanctity
of the person himself. In this case, Mr. Hutt was arrested at his home without
a warrant. The arrest was made after the witness identified him among the 5
photographs presented by the police to the former. Not only did the police
violated Mr. Hutt’s right to unlawful arrest, but they also violated his right of
security when he was arrested in his abode.

Section 5, Rule 113 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure, in connection

with Sec.2 Article 3 of the 1987Constitution, defined when an arrest can be
made. The general rule is that an arrest warrant is issued by a judge to
arrest a person after he finds probable cause after examination under oath
or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce. An
exception to the rule that no warrant of arrest is needed to arrest a person is
only if the police officer or a private person, when in his presence, the
person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing, or is attempting
to commit an offense. Thus, the overt act constituting the crime should be
done in the presence or within the view of the arresting officer so that a
warrantless arrest can be made. In the case at bar, the police arrested Mr.
Hutt only because a photograph of him was identified by a witness when the
police presented to the latter a set of photographs.

The rule in warrantless arrest is clear and as when should an arrest

warrant be issued. But in this case, no crime was plainly exposed to the view
of the arresting officers when they made the arrest to justify a warrantless
arrest. What aggravated the case was that Mr. Hutt was only eating at his
house when the police arrested him. His privacy and sanctity of his abode
was clearly violated. The Supreme Court has explained the main purpose of
Sec.2 of Article 3, in the case of People v. CFI, 5 to prevent violations of
private security in person and property and unlawful invasion of the security
of the home by officers of the law acting under legislative or judicial sanction

4. G.R. No. 180906. October 7, 2008

5. G.R. No. L-41686. November 17, 1980.
and to give remedy against such usurpation when attempted. 6 Since Mr.
Hutt was not in the commission or is committing the crime when the police
officer arrested him in his residence, such warrantless arrest is therefore
unlawful and illegal. Hence, this court did not attain jurisdiction over Mr. Hutt
since the warrantless arrest was illegally and unlawfully made.

JOB HUTT WAS DENIED DUE PROCESS

DURING THE PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION

The irregularity of the procedure during the preliminary investigation

by the office of the prosecutor violated Mr. Hutt’s right to due process. Under
Sec.7 (par.2) of Rules 112 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure, a
person arrested without a warrant must sign a waiver before the information
is filed in the presence of a counsel, to wit:
Sec. 7. When accused lawfully arrested without warrant. … .
Before the complaint or information is filed, the person
arrested may ask for a preliminary investigation in accordance with
this Rule, but he must sign a waiver of the provision of Article 125
of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, in the presence of his
counsel. Notwithstanding the waiver, he may apply for bail and the
investigation must be terminated within fifteen (15) days from its
inception.

In the case of Mr. Job Hutt, the office of the prosecutor asked him to
sign a waiver of his arrest without the presence of a counsel. Because Mr.
Job Hutt was not afforded or even advised of his right to be assisted with a
competent counsel, he was not able to present any evidence during the
preliminary investigation conducted by the office of the prosecutor. Such
conduct during the preliminary investigation denied Mr. Job Hutt of his right
to due process and his right to have a competent and independent counsel
as safeguarded under Sec.1 and Sec.12 of Art.3 of the Constitution.

Hence, any evidence and information obtained during the preliminary

investigation should be held as unlawful, illegal and inadmissible as
evidence against Mr. Hutt as stated and granted under Sec.3 (2) of the
Constitution which states that: “Any evidence obtained in violation of this or
the preceding section shall be inadmissible for any purpose in any
proceeding.”

6. G.R. No. L-41686. November 17, 1980.

 The argument of the prosecution that Mr. Hutt voluntarily signed the
waiver during the conduct of preliminary investigation by the office of the
prosecutor is untenable and is against procedural rules under Rule 112 of
the Revised Rules of Criminal procedure. It is also violative of Mr. Hutt’s
right to due process and right to be assisted with a competent and
independent counsel of his choice.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, Job Hutt respectfully prays to the Honorable Court to

quash the Information and to dismiss the criminal charge against him.

Job Hutt likewise respectfully prays for other just and equitable relief.

Cebu City, March 18, 2014.

___________________

Counsel for the Accused

Anna Quinn, Attorney