Lord Val Law Office 123 Honeymoon Avenue Shire City Telefax: 123456

Lord Val Law Office
123 Honeymoon Avenue

Shire City
Telefax: 123456
Mayor Job Hutt

321 Ariana St.
Shire City
Re: Right to the Speedy Disposition of Cases and Motion to Quash
Dear Mr. Job Hutt:
I am writing on behalf of the Lord Val. This letter will inform you of your chances
of acquittal or conviction in the case of non-filing of Statement of Assets,
Liabilities, and Net Worth (SALN) you are facing. Your acquittal is basely
grounded on the your rights to speedy disposition of cases. Likewise, this letter
will also explain to you the chances of your motion to quash the case on a specific
ground, and whether it can be raised after arraignment.
The facts we know are as written below. Please let us know if there is anything we
miss.
Mayor Job Hutt, our client, who is now a private citizen after serving three terms
as mayor in Municipality X where he was first elected in 2007, is charged with
violation of Section 8 in relation to Section 11 of R.A. 6713 for non-filing of his
Statement of Assets, Liabilities, and Net Worth (SALN) in the years 2009 and
2010. The complaint was filed by a concerned citizen in 2010. He was charged by
the Ombudsman-Visayas graft prosecutor in 2011 after conducting the preliminary
investigation. Mayor Job Hutt, through his former counsel, filed a motion for
reconsideration to the Ombudsman-Visayas resolution. However, his motion for
reconsideration was denied only last year, 2016, after review and approval by the
Ombudsman Central Office. He has already been arraigned at one of the courts in
Cebu city and is now at the stage of presentation of second witness for the
prosecution.
Mayor Job Hutt now seeks to file a motion to quash.
ISSUES
1. Whether or not the delay in the Ombudsman preliminary investigation

exceeded reasonable limits.
2. Whether or not the motion to quash is tenable because of the unreasonable
delay in the preliminary investigation.
3. Whether or not the issue can still be raised after arraignment?
BRIEF ANSWERS
1. Yes, the delay in the Ombudsman preliminary investigation exceeded
reasonable limits.
2. Yes, the motion to quash is tenable because of the unreasonable delay in
the preliminary investigation.
3. Yes, the issue can still be raised after arraignment.
The preliminary investigation exceeded reasonable limits which violates your

Consitutional right to speedy disposition1. Under Section 16 Article III of the 1987
Philippine Constitution, all persons shall have the right to a speedy disposition of
their cases before all judicial, quasi-judicial, or administrative bodies. Violation of
such right will make a sufficient ground for a motion to quash the case as decided
in the case of Tatad v. Sandiganbayan (159 SCRA 70 [1988]), Angchangco Jr v.
Ombudsman (268 SCRA 301[1997]) and Roque v. Office of the Ombudsman (307
SCRA 104 [1999]). The mentioned cases held that inordinate delay in resolving the
criminal complaint was violative of the rights to due process and the speedy
disposition of cases, thereby warranting the dismissal of the complaint.
When there is a delay in the preliminary investigation, the prosecution is ousted of

authority to file the information and the quashing thereof and the consequent
dismissal of the case is in order as held in the case of People v. Sandiganbayan,
G.R. No. 189063. You may move to quash the complaint or information if the
officer who filed the information had no authority to do so. 2 The Ombudsman
delayed in resolving or terminating your case making your motion to quash
tenable. The Ombudsman and his Deputies, as prosecutors of the people, shall act
promptly on complaints filed.3
The prosecution might argue that mere delay is not a ground for granting our
motion to quash. But preliminary investigation is not deemed completed or
terminated until after the Ombudsman approves the investigating officer’s
recommendation to either file the information with the Sandiganbayan or to
dismiss the case.4
In the third issue, whether the motion to quash the case can still be raised after
arraignment, Section 1, Rule 117 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure
provides that as a general rule, the motion can be done before entering plea. Lack
of jurisdiction over the subject matter is one of the exceptions where motion to
quash can still be raised even after arraignment. Your case falls to this exception
since the arraignment was done not in the Sandiganbayan Court. You were then a
Municipal Mayor with a salary grade of 27. The Sandiganbayan shall exercise
1 Section 16 Article III of the 1987 Philippine Constitution.

2 Section 3(d), Rule 117 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure.
3 Section 12, Article XI of the Constitution.
4 Rafael Coscolluela v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. 191411 (2013).
original jurisdiction in all cases involving officials of the executive branch
occupying the positions of regional director and higher, otherwise classified as
Grade “27” and higher.5 and Therefore, your motion to quash is tenable even if it
was raised after arraignment.
We strongly believe that your motion to quash has substantial grounds for it to be
granted. The facts of your case clearly reveals that there was an inordinate delay on
the part of the Ombudsman as their preliminary investigation really exceeded
reasonable limits. We also believe that the court who has jurisdiction of your case
is the special collegiate court, Sandiganbayan. So, the motion to quash can still be
raised even though you were already arraigned at one of the courts in Cebu city
because it falls to the exception where motion to quash can still be arraigned even
after arraignment due to lack of jurisdiction. This requires immediate action and
we from the Lord Val Law office are more than willing to be with you for the ends
of justice.
5 Section 2 of R.A. 10660.

Lord Val Law Office 123 Honeymoon Avenue Shire City Telefax: 123456

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Lord Val Law Office 123 Honeymoon Avenue Shire City Telefax: 123456

Uploaded by

Document Information

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

Lord Val Law Office 123 Honeymoon Avenue Shire City Telefax: 123456

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Lord Val Law Office

123 Honeymoon Avenue

Mayor Job Hutt

Re: Right to the Speedy Disposition of Cases and Motion to Quash

Dear Mr. Job Hutt:

Mayor Job Hutt now seeks to file a motion to quash.

1. Whether or not the delay in the Ombudsman preliminary investigation

The preliminary investigation exceeded reasonable limits which violates your

When there is a delay in the preliminary investigation, the prosecution is ousted of

1 Section 16 Article III of the 1987 Philippine Constitution.

5 Section 2 of R.A. 10660.

You might also like