Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Opposition To Motion Quash Information - Back Up
Opposition To Motion Quash Information - Back Up
- versus - for
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The accused clearly violated B.P. Blg. 6, amending P.D. No. 9. The
crime was committed as follows:
ARGUMENTS
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.
[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.
PRAYER
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:
[Type here]