ORAL ARGUMENT

May it please the Court, my name is ___________________ and I represent the Accused, PIOLO PASCUAL We humbly submit to this Court that it should grant defendants motion to quash on the ground:

a. That the INFORMATION FILED BY THE OFFICE OF THE CITY PROSECTUTOR IS INVALID AND CONTRARY TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 3 (E) AND (H), Rule 117 of the Rules on Criminal Procedure, which states that:

The accused may move to quash the complaint or information on any of the following grounds:(e.) That it does not conform substantially to the prescribed form;(h.) That it contains constitute a legal excuse or justification; and averments which, if true, would

The rule explicitly requires that if the investigating prosecutor finds probable cause to hold the respondent for trial, he shall certify under oath in the information:(a) that he, or as shown by the record, an authorized officer has personally examined the complainant and his witnesses;(b) that there is reasonable ground to believe that a crime has been committed and that the accused is probably guilty thereof;(c) that the accused was informed of the complaint and of the evidence submitted against him; and(d) that he was given an opportunity to submit controverting evidence.

In the case of Pete M. Pico vs. Alfonso V. Combing, Jr., A.M. No. RTJ-91-764,November 6, 1992, an accused cannot seek any judicial relief if he does not submit his person to the jurisdiction of the court. Jurisdiction over the person of the accused may be acquired either through compulsory process, such as warrant of arrest, or through his voluntary appearance, such as when he surrenders to the police or to the court.It is only when the court has already acquired jurisdiction over his person that an accused may invoke the processes of the court.Thus, an accused must first be placed in the custody of the law before the court may validly act on his petition for judicialreliefs.

Contrary to these mandatory requirements, it was clearly reflected in the information that the required certification under oath by Prosecutor Kalambra Alubre was omitted.

Furthermore, the lack of certification in the Information is defective, in violation of the requirements under Section 4, Rule 112 which states that:If the investigating prosecutor finds cause to hold respondent for trial, he shall prepare the resolution and information. He shall certify under oath in the information that he, or as shown by the record, an authorized officer, has personally examined the complainant and his witnesses; that there is reasonable ground to believe that a crime has been committed and that the accused is probably guilty thereof; that the accused was informed of the complaint and of the evidence submitted against him; and that he was given an opportunity to submit controverting evidence.