Regional Trial Court: - Versus

Republic of the Philippines
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT

11th Judicial Region
Branch 22, Davao City
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,

Plaintiff,
CRIMINAL CASE No. Q-10-56789
-versus-
FOR: Violation of Section 5, Article
II Republic Act No. 9165,
(Comprehensive Dangerous
Drugs Act of 2002)
BRUNO MARS
Accused.
x------------------------------------x
MOTION TO QUASH INFORMATION
Accused Bruno Mars, by counsel, respectfully moves for the quashal

of the Information dated February 21, 2020 issued by Assistant City
Prosecutor Harith E. Revilla on the following ground:
PREFATORY STATEMENT
Commenting on the possible abuses that are prone to occur in a buy-

bust operation the Supreme Court held in the case of People vs. Ambih1:
“While buy-bust operation is a recognized means of

entrapment for the apprehension of drug pushers, it does not
always commend itself as the most reliable way to go after
violators of the Dangerous Drugs Act as it is susceptible to
mistake as well as to harassment, extortion and abuse.”
1
226 SCRA 84 (1993)
2
Accused is no drug pusher. The only reason he is now in the custody

of the police is because he was illegally arrested for reasons he still cannot
comprehend.
Accused thus respectfully moves for the Quashal of the Information

dated February 21, 2020 issued by Assistant City Prosecutor Harith E.
Revilla, on the following ground:
THE COURT DID NOT ACQUIRE JURISDICTION

OVER THE PERSON OF THE ACCUSED AS THE
ARREST WAS ILLEGAL.
1. In the present case, the prosecution asserts that the

warrantless arrest of the accused Bruno Mars was the result of a validly
conducted buy-bust operation. They likewise claim that the arrest was
performed after the accused had been duly informed of his constitutional
rights.
2. Contrary to the claim of the apprehending police officers that

the warrantless arrest was the result of a valid buy-bust operation, no
actual buy-bust operation did in fact take place. As stated by the accused in
his Counter-Affidavit, members of the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency
(PDEA) broke into his house by breaking open the padlock of his garage
gate. Without introducing themselves as PDEA officers or presenting any
warrant, 12-15 operatives of the PDEA armed with high-powered firearms
then stormed his home confiscating money, cellular phones and other
valuables from the persons of the accused and his visitors. The PDEA
members then proceeded to haul off various items from within the home of
the accused.
3. The accused then recounts that the PDEA operatives then

escorted him and his companion Faramis G. Gomez to a Red Toyota Revo,
which then brought them to Camp Panacan. The accused and Faramis G.
Gomez were not informed of their rights upon their arrest, as well as what
offense they were being charged with.
4. The right of the people to be secure against unreasonable

searches and seizures is an inviolable right protected by the Constitution 2.
As such no person may be validly arrested without the benefit of a warrant
of arrest, except in the specific instances provided by law. Any warrantless
2
Const. (1987), Art. III section 2
3
arrest done outside the specific instances provided by law are thus deemed
to be contrary to law and illegal.
5. The law as it presently stands, enumerates the instances when

an warrant without warrant is valid in Section 5 of Rule 113 of the Rules of
Court, to wit:
Section 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; and
(c) When the person to be arrested is a prisoner

who has escaped from a penal establishment or
place where he is serving final judgment or is
temporarily confined while his case is pending, or
has escaped while being transferred from one
confinement to another.
The enumeration contained in section 5 of Rule 113 of the Rules of Court

being exclusive, any arrest without warrant done outside of those specified
in therein are deemed illegal.
9. The accused Bruno Mars could not have been caught

committing the crime in the presence of his arresting officers, as he 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 Bruno Mars a
fugitive at the time he was arrested. None of the 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
4
quashal of the information or complaint filed against him/her as provided

in the Rules of Court.3
6. Thus considering that the only means, by which the court

acquires jurisdiction over the person of an accused is either by his/her
arrest or voluntary appearance, the effect of an illegal arrest absent the
voluntary appearance of the accused is that the court does not acquire
jurisdiction over his/her person.4 There is no recourse left other than to
quash the present information, as the court has not acquired jurisdiction
over the person of the accused.
PRAYER
WHEREFORE, considering the manifest illegality of the arrest of the

accused Bruno Mars on January 31, 2020 and the consequent absence of
jurisdiction by the court over the person of the accused, it is respectfully
prayed that the Information for Violation of Section 5 of Republic Act No.
9165, otherwise known as “The Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of
2002”, issued by Assistant City Prosecutor Harith E. Revilla on February 21,
2020 against the accused be quashed.
Other just and equitable reliefs are likewise prayed for.
City of Davao, 2 March 2020.
VILLARIN LAW
Unit 11 & 12,City Triangle Corporate Center,
CM Recto St., Davao City
By:
ATTY. PAULO JOSE S. VILLARIN

Counsel of the Accused
Roll of Attorneys No. 696969
PTR No. 69669, 4-24-20, Davao City
IBP No. 5559, 4-24-20, Davao City
MCLE Compliance No. VII-0220293; 4-19-19
Valid until April 14, 2022
Ecoland, Davao City
3
Rules of Court, Rule 117 sec. 3, par. (b)
4
People v Meris (G.R. Nos. 117145-50 & 117447. March 28, 2000.)
5
Copy furnished:
Atty. Lyndzelle Ramona Irvina Olaco VIII

Door 12 , 2NE1 Compound, Alpha Street,
Matina, Davao City
6
NOTICE
The Branch Clerk of Court
Regional Trial Court
Branch 22, Davao City
Please set the foregoing Motion for the consideration and approval
of the Honorable Court on March 18 at 8:30 a.m., without appearance of,
or further arguments from, counsel.
PAULO JOSE S. VILLARIN

Counsel for the Plaintiff
Atty. Lyndzelle Ramona Irvina Olaco VIII

Door 12 , 2NE1 Compound, Alpha Street,
Matina, Davao City
Please take notice that the foregoing Motion will be set for the
consideration and approval of the Honorable Court on March 18 2020 at
8:30 a.m., without appearance of, or further arguments from, counsel
PAULO JOSE S. VILLARIN

Counsel for the Plaintiff

Regional Trial Court: - Versus

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Regional Trial Court: - Versus

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Regional Trial Court: - Versus

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Republic of the Philippines

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,

CRIMINAL CASE No. Q-10-56789

MOTION TO QUASH INFORMATION

Accused Bruno Mars, by counsel, respectfully moves for the quashal

Commenting on the possible abuses that are prone to occur in a buy-

“While buy-bust operation is a recognized means of

Accused is no drug pusher. The only reason he is now in the custody

Accused thus respectfully moves for the Quashal of the Information

THE COURT DID NOT ACQUIRE JURISDICTION

1. In the present case, the prosecution asserts that the

2. Contrary to the claim of the apprehending police officers that

3. The accused then recounts that the PDEA operatives then

4. The right of the people to be secure against unreasonable

5. The law as it presently stands, enumerates the instances when

Section 5. Arrest without warrant; when lawful. —

(a) When, in his presence, the person to be

(b) When an offense has just been committed, and

(c) When the person to be arrested is a prisoner

The enumeration contained in section 5 of Rule 113 of the Rules of Court

9. The accused Bruno Mars could not have been caught

quashal of the information or complaint filed against him/her as provided

6. Thus considering that the only means, by which the court

WHEREFORE, considering the manifest illegality of the arrest of the

Other just and equitable reliefs are likewise prayed for.

City of Davao, 2 March 2020.

ATTY. PAULO JOSE S. VILLARIN

Atty. Lyndzelle Ramona Irvina Olaco VIII

PAULO JOSE S. VILLARIN

Atty. Lyndzelle Ramona Irvina Olaco VIII

PAULO JOSE S. VILLARIN

You might also like