REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT

BRANCH X
FOURTH JUDICIAL REGION
BALAYAN, BATANGAS

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,

Plaintiff,

- versus - CRIMINAL CASE NO. 8175

FOR: VIOLATION OF ART. II,

SEC. 11 PAR. 3 OF RA 9165

JEFF CASTILLO y VILLAVICENCIO,

Accused.
X-------------------------------x

MOTION TO ACQUIT ACCUSED BY WAY OF DEMURRER TO

EVIDENCE

COMES NOW the accused through the undersigned counsel and

unto this Honorable Court most respectfully submits this Motion to
Acquit Accused by way of Demurrer to Evidence.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

AND FACTS

The accused was allegedly charged of violating Article II Section

11 par. 3 of Republic Act No. 9165 on September 18, 2016 after he was
arrested by the police officers from Calaca, who was allegedly
conducting a checkpoint operation during that time.

During arraignment on November 28, 2016, the accused assisted

by Atty. Bryan Alphonso E. Perez from the Public Attorney’s Office,
pleaded not guilty to the said charge. On January 18, 2017, the Pre-trial
Conference was terminated.

The Prosecution presented as their witnesses the following police

officers, namely: PO2 Leon V. Garcia II, and SPO2 Ernesto Matalog.
The Prosecution offered its evidences and likewise rested its case last
December 5, 2019. The undersigned filed its Comment on December 11,
2019. This Court admitted the formal offer in an Order dated December
20, 2019. Hence, this motion.
GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF
LAW AND
JURISPRUDENCE
SUPPORTING THE
DEMURRER

The Article III, Section 2 of the 1987 Constitution of the Republic

of the Philippines mandates the following:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons,

houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable
searches and seizures of whatever nature and for any
purpose shall be inviolable, and no search warrant or
warrant of arrest shall issue except upon probable cause
to be determined personally by the judge after
examination under oath or affirmation of the
complainant and the witnesses he may produce, and
particularly describing the place to be searched and the
persons or things to be seized.

Section 5 of Rule 113 of the Revised Rules of Court pertinently

provides that:

Sec. 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.

In cases falling under paragraphs (a) and (b) above, the

person arrested without a warrant shall be forthwith
delivered to the nearest police station or jail and shall be
proceeded against in accordance with section 7 of Rule
112. (Emphasis supplied)
Section 13 of Rule 126 of the Revised Rules of Court pertinently
provides that:

Sec. 13. Search incident to lawful arrest. – A person

lawfully arrested may be searched for dangerous
weapons or anything which may have been used or
constitute proof in the commission of an offense without a
search warrant.

ISSUES TO RESOLVE

I. Whether or not there was a valid arrest that would justify the
succeeding search and body frisking of the accused;
II. Whether or not the illegal substance allegedly found in the hand
of the accused, during the body frisking, considered a fruit of a
poisonous tree.

DISCUSSION

I. Violation of right against

unreasonable searches and
seizure

First and foremost, one of the commonly known right of the accused
is enshrined in the 1987 Philippine Constitution, and that is the right to
be protected from unreasonable searches and seizures. As such, the rule
requires that only through lawful arrest can an individual be properly
searched. Incidental to that, items seized or searched in his possession,
which is incidental to the lawful arrest, that is violative of any existing
laws can be used against him.

The Constitution underscores the importance of an individual's

right against unlawful searches and seizures, Article III, Section 3(2) of
the Constitution considers any evidence obtained in violation of this
right as inadmissible. This is where the doctrine of fruit of the
poisonous tree comes in.

This foundation will be the crux of our defense as to why the

Prosecution have failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond
reasonable doubt.

II. Was there a valid arrest

that would justify the
search?
 An arrest is considered valid if it emanates from a warrant or it falls
under the exceptions stipulated by Section 5 of Rule 113 of the Revised
Rules of Court. Otherwise, the arrest is considered unlawful.

In this instant case, we should be reminded that there must first be a

lawful arrest before a search is made. To be clear, a lawful arrest must
precede the search; "the process cannot be reversed." These are the
words capitulated by the Supreme Court in their decision in the case of
People v. Racho, 640 Phil. 669, 676 (2010).

Here, both the Prosecution witnesses in the person of PO2 Leon

Garcia II and SPO1 Ernesto Matalog testified that they arrested the
accused because of his resistance and disobedience to a person in
authority. This alleged violation of Article 151 of the Revised Penal Code
was filed and tried before the Municipal Trial Court of Calaca, Batangas.

Going back to the testimony of PO2 Garcia II, he stated that the
accused ignored them when they tried to flagged him down at the check
point that was put up at the National Highway of Calaca, to wit:

Atty. Chavez: During that time Mr. Witness, how

were you able to apprehend the said accused in
that particular case?
PO2 Garcia II: When he pass by our checkpoint,
Sgt. Matalog and I chased him and we caught him
at Lumbang Calzada in the arc of Lumbang
Calzada.

Q: Are you trying to flag him down during that time?

A: Yes, mam.

Q: As for what purpose are you trying to flagged

down the accused?
A: Every vehicles including motorcycles are
being flagged down.1

In arguing as to whether there is a valid arrest or not, the core as

to why there was an alleged confiscation of illegal substance in the
accused’ possession, the Municipal Trial Court of Calaca acquitted the
accused in the case of violation of Article 151 of the Revised Penal Code.

In its Decision, attached herein as Annex “1”, the Court ruled in

favor of the accused finding that there was no official conduct of
checkpoint that the accused has passed thru during that day. Thus, the
allegations of resistance and disobedience towards the Prosecution
witnesses were disputed since there was no checkpoint to speak of at the
first place.
1
TSN, October 18, 2018 page 3
 Thus, in resolving the first issue, the Prosecution failed to prove and
substantiate that there was a valid arrest against the accused. The crime
of resistance and disobedience to a person in authority seems to be a
makeshift attempt to justify the case that is pending before this Court.
However, their attempt was stopped when the first level Court acquitted
the accused for the violation of Article 151 of the Revised Penal Code.

III. Was the illegal substance

confiscated from the
accused considered a fruit
of a poisonous tree?

In answering this issue, the undersigned would like to correlate the

case of Mario Veridiano y Sapi vs. People of the Philippines, G.R. No.
200370, June 7, 2017 and the case at bar. In the former, the petitioner
was acquitted when the Supreme Court found out that the warrantless
search conducted by the police officers is invalid. Consequently, the tea
bag containing marijuana seized from petitioner is rendered
inadmissible under the exclusionary principle in Article III, Section
3(2) of the Constitution. There, it was stated that the petitioner's arrest
could not be justified as an in flagrante delicta arrest under Rule 113,
Section 5(a) of the Rules of Court. He was not committing a crime at the
checkpoint. Petitioner was merely a passenger who did not exhibit any
unusual conduct in the presence of the law enforcers that would incite
suspicion.

Drawing a parallel to this case, there was no valid warrantless arrest

to speak of since it was found out by the first level court that the accused
was not guilty of resistance and disobedience to a person in authority.
Thus, if there was no valid crime for the accused to be arrested there,
then it goes to show that the search and body frisking is invalid.

In the case of People v. Cogaed, 740 Phil. 212, 232 (2014), the
Supreme Court ruled that although a "stop and frisk" search is a
necessary law enforcement measure specifically directed towards crime
prevention, there is a need to safeguard the right of individuals against
unreasonable searches and seizures. The premise that a valid arrest
must always precede the search should always be the primordial
consideration.

Since what the police officers did in this case is an invalid search,
then automatically the confiscated item is likewise branded as invalid
for being a fruit of the poisonous tree.

The concept behind the doctrine of a fruit of the poisonous tree as

an exclusionary rule inculcates that evidence obtained and confiscated
on the occasion of such unreasonable searches and seizures are deemed
tainted and should be excluded for being the well-known fruit of a
poisonous tree. Meaning, all the evidence obtained from the
unreasonable searches and seizures shall be excluded in evidence for
any purpose in any proceeding since they have no more bearing in
Court. These are the words instructed by the Supreme Court when it
acquitted Alvin Comerciante y Gonzales for the alleged violation of
Section 11, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165.2

IV. Conclusion & Prayer

Based from the foregoing, the defense is of the view that the
Prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable
doubt. The undersigned have aptly provided this Court a copy of the
Decision of the MTC Calaca, acquitting the accused for the case of
resistance and disobedience to a person in authority, the raison d'être
why this case was even filed.

Since there is no valid arrest, there is likewise no valid search. The

invalidity of the confiscated shabu, results to the fact that no evidence is
left to convict the accused. Thus, an acquittal is only warranted.

WHEREFORE, premises considered it is respectfully prayed

before this Honorable Court that the accused be acquitted of the crime
charged against him for reasons presented above.

Other reliefs are also prayed for.

Respectfully submitted.

Balayan, Batangas, January 9, 2020.

PUBLIC ATTORNEY’S OFFICE

Department of Justice
BALAYAN, BATANGAS DISTRICT OFFICE
Hall of Justice, Tolentino Blvd.,
Balayan, Batangas
Counsel for the Accused

BY:

MYRAFLOR L. CHAVEZ
Public Attorney II

2
Comerciante v. People, 764 Phil. 627, 633-634 (2015).
The Clerk of Court
Regional Trial Court
Br. X, Balayan, Batangas

GREETINGS:

Please take notice that on January 27, 2020 at 8:30 o’clock in the
morning or at any time most convenient to this Court, let the foregoing
Motion to Acquit by Way of Demurrer to Evidence be set for hearing as
the undersigned will ask the Court to consider and approve the foregoing
motion.

ATTY. MYRAFLOR L. CHAVEZ

COPY FURNISHED:

Office of the Prov’l Prosecutor

Balayan, Batangas