Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Opposition To Motion Quash Information - Back Up

    Uploaded by

    merlyn gutierrez
    36 views4 pages
    The prosecution argues that the facts charged in the information - that the accused carried a kitchen knife outside his residence without justification - constitute an offense under B.P. Blg. 6, which prohibits carrying weapons outside one's residence. The prosecution also argues that applying an earlier Supreme Court decision interpreting P.D. No. 9 would be incorrect, as B.P. Blg. 6 amended that law after the alleged offense. The prosecution believes the information provides sufficient details of the offense and that any defects are non-prejudicial.

    Original Description:

    Original Title

    opposition to motion quash information_back up

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The prosecution argues that the facts charged in the information - that the accused carried a kitchen knife outside his residence without justification - constitute an offense under B.P. Blg. 6, which prohibits carrying weapons outside one's residence. The prosecution also argues that applying an earlier Supreme Court decision interpreting P.D. No. 9 would be incorrect, as B.P. Blg. 6 amended that law after the alleged offense. The prosecution believes the information provides sufficient details of the offense and that any defects are non-prejudicial.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    36 views4 pages

    Opposition To Motion Quash Information - Back Up

    Uploaded by

    merlyn gutierrez
    The prosecution argues that the facts charged in the information - that the accused carried a kitchen knife outside his residence without justification - constitute an offense under B.P. Blg. 6, which prohibits carrying weapons outside one's residence. The prosecution also argues that applying an earlier Supreme Court decision interpreting P.D. No. 9 would be incorrect, as B.P. Blg. 6 amended that law after the alleged offense. The prosecution believes the information provides sufficient details of the offense and that any defects are non-prejudicial.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 4

    Republic of the Philippines

    Fourth Judicial Region


    MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT IN CITIES
    Branch I
    Bulwagan ng Katarungan
    Pallocan West, Batangas City

    THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,


    Plaintiff, CRIMINAL CASE NO. 56005

    - versus - for

    PEPITO MANALOTO y Suerte VIOLATION OF B.P.BLG. 6


    @ “Pits”, AMENDING P.D. NO. 9
    Accused.
    x---------------------------------x

    OPPOSITION TO DEFENSE MOTION TO QUASH

    The prosecution through counsel submits this opposition to


    defense motion to quash information, and argues as follows:

    STATEMENT OF FACTS

    The accused clearly violated B.P. Blg. 6, amending P.D. No. 9. The
    crime was committed as follows:

    That on or about April 10, 2020 at around 10:30 in the evening at


    Mendoza Road, Brgy. Sta. Rita, Batangas City, Philippines, and within
    the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-mentioned accused,
    without any justifiable cause and without authority of law, did then and
    there knowingly, willfully, and criminally carry outside his residence one
    (1) kitchen knife, a deadly weapon, in clear violation of the above-cited
    law.

    ARGUMENTS

    THE FACTS CHARGED IN THE INFORMATION CONSTITUTE AN


    OFFENSE

    In the motion to quash, the defense argues that the facts charge in
    the information do not constitute an offense because it does not state
    every single fact necessary to constitute offense charged. Contrary to the
    said allegation, the prosecution believes otherwise. The facts charged in
    the information constitute an offense. For as long as the ultimate facts
    constituting the offense have been alleged, an information charging a
    violation of B.P. Blg. 6 need not state to the point of specificity. An
    Information need only to state the ultimate facts consisting the offense

    [Type here]
    and not the finer details of why and how the crime was committed. It
    only needs to state the “ultimate facts constituting the complainant’s
    cause or causes of action.” 1 Ultimate facts has been defined as “those
    facts which the expected evidence will support.” 2 The prosecution
    believes that the complainant’s allegation in the Information constitutes
    the ultimate facts which the Rules of Court requires. Ultimate facts are
    as important and substantial facts which either directly form the basis of
    the primary right and duty, or which directly make upon the wrongful
    acts or omissions of the defendant. The term does not refer to the details
    of probative matter or particulars of evidence by which these material
    elements are to be established. It refers to principal, determinate facts
    upon the existence of which the entire cause of action rests.” 3 Ultimate
    facts are conclusions drawn from intermediate and evidentiary facts, or
    allegations of mixed law and fact; they are conclusions from reflection
    and natural reasoning on evidentiary fact.

    Furthermore, the defense in his motion to quash vehemently


    applied the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of People vs.
    Purisima that had set the elements of the crime under P.D. No. 9 which
    was eventually affirmed in the more recent case of People vs. Lasanas
    et.al to absolve the accused which is penalized under B.P. Blg. 6 stating
    that the violation of second element under the former special law is
    absent in the information filed by PO3 Cardo Dalisay, Patrick E.
    Manansala and Rey V. Guinto.

    The prosecution strongly disagree with the application of the


    judicial decision in the case of People vs. Lasanas which was decided by
    the Supreme Court on November 20, 1978, while B.P. Blg. 6 was enacted
    on 21 November 1978 amending paragraph 3 of P.D. No. 9 which
    penalize the act of carrying outside of one’s residence any bladed,
    pointed or blunt weapon as a malum prohibitum, except where such
    articles were used as necessary tools or implements to earn a livelihood
    or in pursuit of a lawful activity.

    The application of the original paragraph 3 of P.D. No. 9 to the


    instant case is not proper as it was amended by B.P. Blg. 6 at the time of
    the commission of the crime.

    In respectively arguing for and against the prospective application


    of the decision in People vs. Purisima and People vs. Lasanas in the
    instant case, decisions of the Court, although in themselves not laws, are
    nevertheless evidence of what the laws mean, and this is the reason why
    under Article 8 of the New Civil Code, which states that judicial decisions
    applying or interpreting the laws of the Constitution shall form a part of
    the legal system, Article 4 of the Civil Code, on the other hand,
    enunciates the rule on non-retroactivity of laws, in that ''laws shall have
    no retroactive effect, unless the contrary is provided."

    While it is consequently clear that a judicial interpretation


    becomes a part of the law as of the date that law was originally passed,
    subject only to the qualification that when a doctrine of the court is
    overruled and a different view is adopted, and more so when there is a
    1
    Sec. 3, Rule 6, Rules of Court
    2
    Black’s Law Dictionary, Fourt Ed., citing McDuffie v. California Tehama Land Corporation, 138 Cal. App.
    245, 32 P. 2d 385, 386.
    3
    Francisco, The Revised Rules of Court in the Philippines, Vol. I, p. 435

    [Type here]
    reversal thereof, the new doctrine should be applied prospectively and
    should not apply to parties who relied on the old doctrine and acted in
    good faith. To hold otherwise would be to deprive the law of its quality of
    fairness and justice then, if there is no recognition of what had
    transpired prior to such adjudication.

    Moreover, non-prejudicial formal defects will not be sustained as a


    ground for quashing the information. The formal parts of a complaint or
    information are provided for in Section 5 to 12 of Rules of Criminal
    Procedure. It is object of a complaint or information to enable a man of
    common understanding to know what offenses he is charged of.

    An information which sets forth the names of the defendant and


    the offended parties, designates the crime charged and relates the acts
    complained of as constituting the crime in ordinary and concise language
    and states the offense was committed within the jurisdiction of the court
    is sufficient.4

    If such defects are properly and opportunely raised, an


    amendment of the complaint or information may be ordered by the court
    under Section 4, Rule 117 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure.

    Since all the allegations of the defense are non-prejudicial formal


    defects, therefore it will not sustain as a ground for quashing the
    information.

    As to the defense contention that absence of motivation to commit


    an offense or crime while carrying a knife does not constitute a criminal
    offense itself is without merit. It must not be forgotten that there are
    certain stages in the fight against criminality. The stages are prevention,
    apprehension, imprisonment and then rehabilitation. The law seeks to
    prevent the commission of crimes by people who, because of the existing
    law will not be encouraged to carry with them bladed weapons even at
    that time when they have bladed weapons, they have no criminal intent.

    In addition, what is sought to be punished in B.P. Blg. 6 is the


    mere act of possession alone. The motivation to commit a crime is not
    necessary to establish once a person is caught in possession of a bladed,
    blunt or pointed weapons. The mere carrying of a bladed or pointed
    weapon is already punishable under this Act, and if these are used in
    committing an offense, then one will be liable for any other offense he
    may have committed or intended to commit and the penalty shall be
    imposed in its maximum period.

    Lastly, the defense overlooked the certification attached to the


    information.

    PRAYER

    WHEREFORE, the above premises considered, respectfully


    prays to the Honorable Court to oppose to quash the information filed by
    the accused, and pursue the criminal charge against him.

    Batangas City, 29 May 2020.

    4
    US vs. Legaspi, 14 Phil. 38

    [Type here]
    ATTY. SAI A. GUTIERREZ
    City Prosecutor
    Roll No. 77790
    IBP No. 093459 10-18-19
    PTR No. 0556040 01-13-20
    MCLE Compliance No.IV-
    443584
    Issued on December 12, 2019
    143 Forever St., Batangas City
    Tel No. 288-2014

    COPY FURNISHED:

    THE CLERK OF COURT


    Fourth Judicial Region
    Municipal Trial Court in Cities
    Branch I
    Bulwagan ng Katarungan

    [Type here]

    You might also like