7/24/2019 Law CrimPro MotionToQuash

1/3

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

In the Metropolitan Trial Court of

Quezon City, Branch 40,National Capital Judicial Region

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff

VersusANALIZA MARZAN,

Accused

Criminal Case no. 100fr

Violation of Revised Penal Code Article 263

MOTION TO QUA!

!efendant thru"h cunsel, and unt this Hnura#le Curt, #$ a SPECIAL APPEARANCE%&es t 'uash the infr%atin filed a"ainst the defendant n the fll(in" "rund)

T"at t"e Court trying t"e case "as no #urisdiction o$er t"e person of t"e accused

AR%UM&NT

Cunsel f the defendant'y a special appearance %st res*ectfull$ su#%its that theHonourable Court that now tries the case is in want of jurisdiction over the person of the

accused pursuant to Rule (() ec. * +c, of t"e Re$ised Rules of Criminal -rocedure because

while information was indeed filed,

(1) there has neither been on the part of the defendant, a valid arrest, voluntary

surrender or actual physical restraint on the accuseds liberty;(2) nor has there been any filin of pleadin in behalf of the accused that souht

affirmative relief!

"ny one situation would have iven the Honourable Court jurisdiction over the person ofthe accused had they been present, but they are not, especially since the defendant has left the

country before the filin of the information and is now in the #indom of $pain! %hus, this

leaves the Honourable Court withoutjurisdiction over her person!

IN VIE+ OF ALL THE FOREOIN, it is res*ectfull$ *ra$ed that the a#&e-entitled

infr%atin #e 'uashed, and the defendant #e dischar"ed.

ANELO FRANCISCO B. PIE!RACunsel fr the !efendant

/ Oct#er 01/0

7/24/2019 Law CrimPro MotionToQuash

2/3

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

In the Regional Trial Court of

Quezon City, Branch 40,National Capital Judicial Region

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff

VersusANALIZA MARZAN,

Accused

Criminal Case no. 100fr

Violation of Revised Penal Code Article 26

MOTION TO QUA!

!efendant thru"h cunsel, and unt this Hnura#le Curt, #$ a SPECIAL APPEARANCE%&es t 'uash the infr%atin filed a"ainst the defendant n the fll(in" "rund)

T"at t"e Court trying t"e case "as no #urisdiction o$er t"e person of t"e accused.

AR%UM&NT

Cunsel f the defendant'y a special appearance %st res*ectfull$ su#%its that theHonourable Court that now tries the case is in want of jurisdiction over the person of the

accused pursuant to Rule (() ec. * +c, of t"e Re$ised Rules of Criminal -rocedure because

while information was indeed filed,

(1) there has neither been on the part of the defendant, a valid arrest, voluntary

surrender or actual physical restraint on the accuseds liberty;(2) nor has there been any filin of pleadin in behalf of the accused that souht

affirmative relief!

"ny one situation would have iven the Honourable Court jurisdiction over the person ofthe accused had they been present, but they are not, especially since the defendant has left the

country before the filin of the information and is now in the #indom of $pain! %hus, this

leaves the Honourable Court withoutjurisdiction over her person!

IN VIE+ OF ALL THE FOREOIN, it is res*ectfull$ *ra$ed that the a#&e-entitled

infr%atin #e 'uashed, and the defendant #e dischar"ed.

ANELO FRANCISCO B. PIE!RACunsel fr the !efendant

/ Oct#er 01/0

7/24/2019 Law CrimPro MotionToQuash

3/3

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

In the Regional Trial Court of

Quezon City, Branch 40,National Capital Judicial Region

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff

Versus!"#$ %$ LA P$NA AN% R$#&' %$L R"#ARI",

Accused

Criminal Case no. 100fr

Violation of Revised Penal Code Article 2(4

MOTION TO QUA!

!efendant thru"h cunsel, and unt this Hnura#le Curt, %&es t 'uash the infr%atinfiled a"ainst the defendant n the fll(in" "rund)

T"at t"e accused "as 'een pre$iously 'een acuitted of t"e offense c"arged

AR%UM&NT

Cunsel f the defendant%st res*ectfull$ su#%its that the accused has been previouslybeen ac&uitted of the offense now chared,pursuant to Rule (() ec. * +i, of t"e Re$isedRules of Criminal -rocedure/for while information was indeed filed on 2' $eptember 212,

rior information of violation of "rticle 2*' of the +evised enal Code throuh the same

set of facts as alleed by the same private complainant aainst the same defendants has

been filed by the prosecutor on 2 $eptember 212 and the Honourable +eional %rialCourt of ue-on City .ranch /* has ta0en coni-ance of the same and ac&uitted the

defendants on 2/ $eptember 212!

t is further humbly bidden, that continuin coni-ance of this case aainst thedefendants would violate their riht aainst double jeopardy as protected by Art. III ec. 0( oft"e -"ilippine Constitution.

IN VIE+ OF ALL THE FOREOIN, it is res*ectfull$ *ra$ed that the a#&e-entitled

infr%atin #e 'uashed, and the defendants #e dischar"ed.

ANELO FRANCISCO B. PIE!RA

Cunsel fr the !efendant/ Oct#er 01/0