REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT IN CITIES 7TH JUDICIAL REGION BRANCH 123, CEBU CITY PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiffs Criminal Case No. 14344 For: Violation of RA 6713 ---versus--JOB HUTT, Accused x------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------///
MOTION TO QUASH (Accused) Job Hutt, through counsel, and unto this Honorable Court, most humbly and respectfully files this Motion to Quash and states t hat: STATEMENT OF FACTS
Job Hutt, our client, was first elected as Mayor in Municipality X IN 2007 and now a private citizen after serving for three terms as Mayor. He is charged by the Ombudsman-Visayas Ombudsman-Visayas Graft Prosecutor with a violation of Section 8 in relation to Section 11 of RA 6713 for non-filing of his SALN in the years 2009 and 2010. Mayor Job Hutt then, through his former counsel, filed a motion for reconsideration to the Ombudsman-Visayas resolution and was eventually denied, after review and approval by the Ombudsman Ombudsman Central Office only last year, 2016. 20 16. Mayor Job Hutt has already been arraigned at one of the courts in Cebu City when he engaged our services on January 2017. His former counsel has suffered a heart stroke and now incapacitated to represent the mayor. Mayor Job Hutt’s case is now at the stage of presentation of second witness for the prosecution.
ISSUES
1. 2.
Whether the Motion to Quash is tenable on the ground of Mayor Job Hutt’s right to right to speedy disposition of cases? Whether the motion to quash can still be raised after arraignment?
ARGUMENTS AND DISCUSSIONS
Sec. 16, Article 3 of the 1987 Constitution of the Philippines: “All persons shall have the right to a speedy disposition of their cases before all judicial, quasi- judicial, or administrative bodies.”
-
This is an absolute provision in which it must be complied with, in the case at bar, we would definitely use this as an advantage for our client has the right to a speedy disposition of his case due to the delay in the Ombudsman preliminary investigation.
• Rule 117, (Motion to Quash) of The Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure: Section 1. Time to move quash – “At any time before entering his plea, the accused may move to quash the complaint or information.” The defendant waives the formal objectives to the complaint or information when the defendant is arraigned and enters his plea before filing the motion to quash. But in some cases, a motion to quash may still prosper and may be raised at any stage of the proceeding if the ground for the motion falls under these circumstances: Double jeopardy
Lack of jurisdiction over the offense;
Failure to charge an offense;
Extinction of criminal liability
The amount of time that passed since the filing of the complaint proves prejudicial to my client. These substantive points taken together already warrant the dismissal of the case. Looking at the time and date which have passed, it is obviously shown that the Ombudsman acted with unlawful delay for having 6 years lapsed before its denial in the Ombudsman’ review and approval. We certainly believed that the Ombudsman failed to prove and explain these certain causes in the Delay of the case at bar which exceeded its reasonable limits:
The Length of the delay
Reasons for the delay
Assertion or failure to assert such right by the accused; and
Prejudice caused by the delay.
It has been said that “ justice delayed is justice denied” and oftentimes, this maxim has proven to be true in the Philippine justice system. Our laws do have safeguards to ensure the prompt and speedy action on all types of legal actions and cases. The Constitution mandates dispatch not only in the trial stage but also in the
disposition thereof, warranting dismissals in case of violations thereof without the fault of the party concerned, not just the accused. The right to a speedy disposition of a case, like the right to speedy trial, is deemed violated only when the proceeding is attended by vexatious, capricious, and oppressive delays; or when unjustified postponements of trial are asked for and secured, or when without cause or justifiable motive a long period of time is allowed to elapse without the party having his case tried. Equally applicable is the balancing test used to determine whether a defendant has been denied his right to a speedy trial, or a speedy disposition of a case for that matter, in which the conduct of both the prosecution and the defendant are weighed, and such factors as length of the delay, reason for the delay, reason for the delay, the defendant’s assertion or non-assertion of his right, and prejudice to the defendant resulting from the delay, are considered. Our client’s case is curr ently at the stage of presentation of second witness for the prosecution therefore it is required to have appropriate action for our client’s favor. PRAYER
The Above Premises Considered, (Accused) Job Hutt respectfully prays to the Honorable Court to quash the Information and to dismiss the criminal case charged against him. Hob Hutt likewise respectfully prays for other just and equitable relief. Cebu City, Philippines. March 6, 2017.
Counsel for the Accused:
Atty. Mcvin G. Fernandez (Associate Attorney) Lord Val and Associates Law Office Room 406 143 Allalone Avenue Municipality X, Philippines Telefax: 123456 Atty.’s Roll No. 16101527
