REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINE

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT

SIXTH JUDICIAL REGION
ILOILO CITY

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Criminal Case No.

Plaintiff, R-2D2

-versus- For:

LEO DEMAISIP, VIOLATION OF RA 7394

Accused. (Consumer Act of the
x-----------------------------------------------x Philippines)

MOTION TO QUASH

ACCUSED, LEO DEMAISIP, by counsel and unto this

Honorable Court, most respectfully move to quash the information
filed against the accused

PREFATORY STATEMENT

In the case of Domingo v. Sandiganbayan, (322 SCRA 655

[2000]), the Supreme Court held that “the test to determine whether
or not the facts charged in the information constitute an offense is to
ask whether the facts alleged, if hypothetically admitted, would
establish the essential elements of the crime charged. If the answer is
yes, then the motion to quash should be denied. The truth of the
allegations is not material in determining the sufficiency of the motion
to quash but is something to be established by the evidence adduced
during trial. The test focuses solely on the allegations of the
information and evidence aliunde is not considered”.

In addition, basic is the doctrine that Jurisdiction of a court over

the subject-matter of an action is conferred only by the Constitution or
the law and that the Rules of Court yield to substantive law, in this
case, the Judiciary Act and B.P. Blg. 129, both as amended, and of
which jurisdiction is only a part. Jurisdiction cannot be acquired
through, or waived, enlarged or diminished by, any act or omission of
the parties; neither can it be conferred by the acquiescence of the
court. Jurisdiction must exist as a matter of law (Machado v. Gatdula,
G.R. No. 156287, February 16, 2010).

GROUNDS

A. THE FACTS CHARGED IN THE INFORMATION DO NOT

CONSTITUTE AN OFFENSE.
 2

B. THIS HONORABLE COURT HAS NO JURISDICTION

OVER THE SUBJECT-MATTER OF THE CASE.

THE FACTUAL BASIS OF THE GROUNDS CITED

I. There is insufficiency of facts in the information to indict

the accused for violation of RA 7394.

1. Every information must adhere to the basic provisions of the Rules

of Court with respect to its sufficiency in form and substance.
Accordingly, the Rules of Court specifically, Rule 110, sec. 6 and 9
thereof, provide, to wit:

section 6. Sufficiency of complaint or information. - A complaint or

information is sufficient if it states the name of the accused; the
designation of the offense given by the statute; the acts or omissions
complained of as constituting the offense; the name of the offended
party; the approximate date of the commission of the offense; and the
place where the offense was committed.
section 9. Cause of the accusation. - The acts or omissions
complained of as constituting the offense and the qualifying and
aggravating circumstances must be stated in ordinary and concise
language and not necessarily in the language used in the statute but
in terms sufficient to enable a person of common understanding to
know what offense is being charged as well as its qualifying and
aggravating circumstances and for the court to pronounce judgment.

2. The information, to be sufficient in form and in substance must

clearly allege the facts in an ordinary and concise language that
constitute an offense. In the present case, Accused respectfully
submits that the information is wanting on this particular matter.

3. First. Upon careful perusal of the law involved herein, the law
enumerated at least seven (7) penalties for at least seven (7) different
acts and offenses. In the information filed before this Honorable
Court, there was no particular mention of a specific provision of RA
7394 that the Accused have violated.

4. Second. Assuming without admitting, that the information was

based on the records of the preliminary investigation which was
focused on Article 40 sections A and B of RA 7394, the information
would still be wanting with regard to the elements of the offense.

5. As may be gleaned from the law, there are three elements for
violation of article 40 sections a and b of RA 7394. These are found in
article 23, article 40 (sections a and b) and article 41 (sections a and
b). According to Article 41 section b of RA 7394, lacking of “Good
Faith” is necessary to make the penalty indicated therein applicable.
 3

which state, to wit:

b) No person shall be subject to the penalties of sub-article (a) of this

Article for (1) having sold, offered for sale or transferred any product
and delivered it, if such delivery was made in good faith, unless he
refuses to furnish on request of the Department, the name and
address of the person from whom he purchased or received such
product and copies of all documents, if any there be, pertaining to the
delivery of the product to him; (2) having violated Article 40 (a) if he
established a guaranty or undertaking signed by, and containing the
name and address of, the person residing in the Philippines from
whom he received in good faith the product, or (3) having violated
Article 40 (a), where the violation exists because the product is
adulterated by reason of containing a color other than the permissible
one under regulations promulgated by the Department in this Act, if
such person establishes a guaranty or undertaking signed by, and
containing the name and address, of the manufacturer of the color, to
the effect that such color is permissible, under applicable regulations
promulgated by the Department in this Act.

6. The above-mentioned provision specifically states that for the

penalty to be applicable, the Accused must be in bad faith. The
information did not clearly state that the Accused acted in bad faith
without which, the Accused cannot be subject to the violation as
stated in the law.

7. Third. Assuming for the sake of argument that RA 7394 is not the
law that governs the facts as allege in the information rather a
violation of
the Revised Penal Code particularly serious physical injuries. The
Information is still wanting of the necessary facts to constitute an
offense.

8. Under the Revised Penal Code Article 263 which state, to wit:

Art. 263. Serious physical injuries. — Any person who shall wound,
beat, or assault another, shall be guilty of the crime of serious
physical injuries and shall suffer:
1. The penalty of prision mayor, if in consequence of the physical
injuries inflicted, the injured person shall become insane, imbecile,
impotent, or blind;

2. The penalty of prision correccional in its medium and maximum

periods, if in consequence of the physical injuries inflicted, the person
injured shall have 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 such member, or shall have become
incapacitated for the work in which he was therefor habitually
engaged;
 4

3. The penalty of prision correccional in its minimum and medium

periods, if in consequence of the physical injuries inflicted, the person
injured shall have become deformed, or shall have lost any other part
of his body, or shall have lost the use thereof, or shall have been ill or
incapacitated for the performance of the work in which he as
habitually engaged for a period of more than ninety days;
3. The penalty of arresto mayor in its maximum period to prision
correccional in its minimum period, if the physical injuries inflicted
shall have caused the illness or incapacity for labor of the injured
person for more than thirty days.

9. In the above-mentioned provision of the Revised Penal Code, the

facts allege in the information does not fall within any of the acts that
are punishable therein.

10. Thus, the facts charged in the information do not constitute an

offense.

II. The Consumer Act of the Philippines specifically

provides the penalties for violation of its provisions. The
maximum penalty imposed, as provided in the law, is a
maximum imprisonment of not more than 5 years and/or
fines hence, this Honorable Court does not have
jurisdiction over the case.

11. A cursory reading of the Resolution by the City Prosecutor’s

Office dated April 30, 2014 and the Information dated May 13, 2014
readily show that this case is not within the exclusive and original
jurisdiction of this Honorable Regional Trial Court.

12. The Information, which is based on the above-mention resolution,

alleges that the accused violated Paragraphs A and B of article 40 of
Republic Act 7394 or otherwise known as the Consumer Act of the
Philippines. Accordingly, the law provides for the penalty for such
violation. The law states, to wit:

PROHIBITED ACTS AND PENALTIES

Article 40. Prohibited Acts. – The following acts and the causing
thereof are hereby prohibited:
a) the manufacture, importation, exportation, sale, offering for sale,
distribution or transfer of any food, drug, device or cosmetic that is
adulterated or mislabeled;
b) the adulteration or misbranding of any food, drug, device or
 5

cosmetic;
Article 41. Penalties. –
a) Any person who violates any of the provisions of Article 40 hereof
shall, upon conviction, be subject to imprisonment of not less than
one (1) year but not more than five (5) years, or a fine of not less than
Five thousand pesos (P5,000.00) but not more than Ten thousand
pesos (P10,000.00), or both such imprisonment and fine, in the
discretion of the Court.

Should the offense be committed by a juridical person, the Chairman

of the Board of Directors, the President, General Manager, or the
partners and/or the persons directly responsible therefor shall be
penalized.

b) No person shall be subject to the penalties of sub-article (a) of this

Article for (1) having sold, offered for sale or transferred any product
and delivered it, if such delivery was made in good faith, unless he
refuses to furnish on request of the Department, the name and
address of the person from whom he purchased or received such
product and copies of all documents, if any there be, pertaining to the
delivery of the product to him; (2) having violated Article 40 (a) if he
established a guaranty or undertaking signed by, and containing the
name and address of, the person residing in the Philippines from
whom he received in good faith the product, or (3) having violated
Article 40 (a), where the violation exists because the product is
adulterated by reason of containing a color other than the permissible
one under regulations promulgated by the Department in this Act, if
such person establishes a guaranty or undertaking signed by, and
containing the name and address, of the manufacturer of the color, to
the effect that such color is permissible, under applicable regulations
promulgated by the Department in this Act.

13. This clearly shows that the case before this Honorable Court is
not within its Jurisdiction since the penalty as provided by law is
within the jurisdiction of the Municipal Trial Court as provided in B.P.
blg. 129 section 32, to wit:

Section 32. Jurisdiction of Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial

Courts and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts in criminal cases. – Except
in cases falling within the exclusive original jurisdiction of Regional
Trial Courts and of the Sandiganbayan, the Metropolitan Trial Courts,
Municipal Trial Courts, and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts shall
exercise:
 6

(1) Exclusive original jurisdiction over all violations of city or municipal

ordinances committed within their respective territorial jurisdiction;
and

(2) Exclusive original jurisdiction over all offenses punishable with

imprisonment not exceeding six (6) years irrespective of the amount
of fine, and regardless of other imposable accessory or other
penalties, including the civil liability arising from such offenses or
predicated thereon, irrespective of kind, nature, value, or amount
thereof: Provided, however, That in offenses involving damage to
property through criminal negligence they shall have exclusive
original jurisdiction thereof. (as amended by R.A, No. 7691)

14. According to the Supreme Court in the case of People v.

Purisima, 69 SCRA 341, May 18, 1990, the penalty which attaches to
a particular offense often determines which court has jurisdiction
thereof, and the general rule has been stated to be that no court can
have jurisdiction of an offense punishable by penalties which are
beyond the power of the court to impose. In criminal prosecution,
jurisdiction is determined by the fine and imprisonment prescribed by
law.

15. In the instant case, RA 7394 article 41 falls within the general rule
as stated in the preceding paragraph. The law provides for
imprisonment of not less than one (1) year but not more than
five (5) years of imprisonment or a fine of not less than
P5,000.00 but not more than P10,000.00 or both hence, the case is
well within the jurisdiction of the Municipal Trial Court not of this
Honorable Court.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing, it is most

respectfully prayed that the information be quashed on the ground of
lack of jurisdiction over the subject-matter and/or the facts charged in
the information do not constitute an offense.
Other reliefs just and equitable are likewise prayed for.

Iloilo City, Philippines, January 10, 2020.

KARLA JOYCE C. PINEDA

CRES Bulding, Lawaan, Jaro
e-mail: kjcpineda@hotmail.com
PTR No. 2020921/ January 3, 2019 / Iloilo City
IBP No. 092196 / January 10, 2019 / Iloilo Chapter
Roll of Attorney No. 67680
MCLE Compliance No. VI-0006989
 7

NOTICE OF HEARING

THE HONORABLE CLERK OF COURT

RTC, Branch __
Iloilo City

Please set the foregoing motion for the resolution of the

Honorable Court on January 10, 2020 at 8:30 0’clock in the morning.

KARLA JOYCE PINEDA

THE HONORABLE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

CITY PROSECUTOR’S OFFICE
HALL OF JUSTICE
ILOILO CITY

Greetings!

Please take notice that on January 10, 2020 at 8:30 o’clock in

the morning or as soon as counsel can be heard, the undersigned will
submit the foregoing Motion for the resolution and approval of this
Honorable Court.

KARLA JOYCE PINEDA

Copy Furnished:

THE HONORABLE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

CITY PROSECUTOR’S OFFICE
HALL OF JUSTICE
ILOILO CITY
Received By: _____________ Date of Receipt: ______________