Republic of the Philippines

Second Judicial Region

MUNICIPAL CIRCUIT TRIAL COURT
Tumauini – Delfin Albano
Tumauini, Isabela

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,

Plaintiff, Criminal Case No: 3668

-versus- For

JOSIE CANDAROMA, VIOLATION OF B.P.22

Accused,
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x

OMNIBUS MOTION TO QUASH

The accused, through counsel duly appointed by the court, respectfully avers:

1. That the accused was charged with violation of BRP No. 22, quoted as follows:

That on or about the 18th day of April 2018, in the municipality of

Delfin Albano, province of Isabela, Philippines and within the
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said accused, did then and
there, wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously, draw and issue Post-dated
Check No. 0001284457, in the amount of P200,000.00 dated July 16,
2018 in favor of Jane Sierra Pascual, in payment of an obligation,
drawn against the account of the accused with the Rural Bank
Cauayan – Tumauini Branch, a banking institution duly established
and doing business at Tumauini, Isabela, knowing at the time she
issued the said check, that she had no sufficient funds to cover the
amount of P200,000.00 called for and payable under the said check,
and without informing the payee of such fact, for which said check,
upon presentment to the drawee bank at BDO Bank, Tumauini,
Isabela, for payment, was subsequently dishonoured and rejected and
still dishonoured and rejected for the reasons of “Account Closed”, and
despite notice to the accused of such non-negotiability of the aforesaid
check and repeated demands, to convert the same into cash, refuse
and still refuses to comply with such demands, to the damage and
 prejudice of the said Jane Sierra Pascual, in the aforesaid amount of
P200,000.00.

CONTRARY TO LAW.”

2. That the accused hired the services of Atty. Simangan as his counsel but the latter
did not attend to the scheduled hearings of the Court. That she was assisted by Atty.
Guitangna during the arraignment since Atty. Carlos Simangan did not attend to the
hearings.

3. That prior to the filing of the aforesaid case, the same private complainant filed a
sum of money docketed as SCC-1091 entitled Jane Sierra Pacual v Josie
Candaroma.

4. That the said parties entered into a compromise agreement which was approved by
the Honorable Court on Janaury 10, 2019. The pertinent portion of the Decision
states:

DECISION
(BASED ON COMPROMISE AGREEMENT)

Plaintiff field this case against defendants for collection of sum

money in the amount of Three Hundred Thousand Pesos
(Php300,000.00).

The parties, however, reached an amicable settlement and

submitted to the Court a compromise agreement, the terms and
conditions of which are as follow:

That both parties agree that the defendant had an outstanding

debt to the plaintiff in the amount of Three Hundred Thousand Pesos
(Php300,000.00) plus the filing fees paid in the amount of Five
Thousand Two Hundred Forty Two Pesos (Php5,242.00) equalling to
Three Hundred Five Thousand Two Hundred Forty Two Pesos
(Php305,242.00).

That both parties agree that the defendant will pay the plaintiff
in an instalment basis in the amount of fifty Thousand Eight Hundred
Seventy Four Pesos (Php50,874.00) starting this April 15, 2019 and
 every 15th day of July 2019, October 2019, January 2020, April 2020
and July 2020.

That in this development, the plaintiff will no longer continue

with the prosecutor of this case against the defendant until she had
paid her financial obligation in full.

The parties agree that the approval of this agreement by the

Court shall put an end to this litigation except for the purpose and for
the purpose of execution in case of default.

It appearing that the agreement is not contrary to law, moral,

god customs, public moral and public policy, and pursuant to Article
2028 and 2037 of the Civil Code of the Philippines, the same is hereby
APPROVED and ADOPTED as the decision of this Court.

The parties are hereby ordered to faithfully comply with the

terms and conditions of the agreement.

SO ORDERED
January 10, Tumauini, Isabela
RAMON CORAZON P. BLANCO

Presiding Judge”

5. Violations of BP 22 and small claims cases are mutually exclusive.

6. When the small claims case was filed by Jane Sierra Pascual, the plaintiff specifically
waived her right under BP 22 in his certificate of Non Forum Shopping. 1

7. Thus, this case must be OUTRIGHTLY DISMISSED as the private complainant is

already forum shopping.

8. The filing of this case is barred by res judicata. Res judicata refers to the rule that a
final judgment or decree on the merits by a court of competent jurisdiction is

1
Please see Small Claims complaint.
 conclusive of the rights of the parties or their privies in all later suits on all points and
matters determined in the former suit.2

9. Thus, the foregoing motion to quash.

 PRAYER

WHEREFORE, all the foregoing considered, it is most respectfully begged and

prayed of this Honorable Office to DISMISS the instant case. The filing of this case is barred
by prior judgment.
Other reliefs, just and equitable under the circumstances, are likewise prayed for.
Cabagan, Isabela. 13 February 2020.

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Public Attorney’s Office
Cabagan District Office
Cabagan, Isabela

By:

ATTY. MARICION B. CAPILI-GUINGAB

Ugad, Cabagan, Isabela
Roll No. 61294
MCLE Compliance No. V-0010401; 9/18/2015
IBP No. 010786 Lifetime Isabela

2
Taganas v Emuslan. G.R. No. 146980. September 2, 2003 citing Allied Banking Corporation vs. Court of
Appeals, 229 SCRA 252 [1994].