REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

FOURTH JUDICIAL REGION

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
BRANCH 90
DASMARINAS CITY, CAVITE

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

Plaintiff,
-versusCRIMINAL CASE NO. DC-468-14
FOR: VIOLATION OF RA 7394
(Consumer Act of the Philippines)
NELSON U. ENCALLDO
Accused,
X-----------------------X

MOTION TO QUASH INFORMATION

ACCUSED, NELSON U. ENCALLDO, by counsel and unto this Honorable
Court, most respectfully move to quash the information filed against the
accused on the following grounds:

PREFATORY STATEMENT
In the case of Domingo v. Sandiganbayan, (322 SCRA 655 [2000]), the
Supreme Court held that the test to determine whether or not the facts
charged in the information constitute an offense is to ask whether the facts
alleged, if hypothetically admitted, would establish the essential elements
of the crime charged. If the answer is yes, then the motion to quash should
be denied. The truth of the allegations is not material in determining the
sufficiency of the motion to quash but is something to be established by the
evidence adduced during trial. The test focuses solely on the allegations of
the information and evidence aliunde is not considered.
In addition, basic is the doctrine that Jurisdiction of a court over the subjectmatter of an action is conferred only by the Constitution or the law and that
the Rules of Court yield to substantive law, in this case, the Judiciary Act
and B.P. Blg. 129, both as amended, and of which jurisdiction is only a
part. Jurisdiction cannot be acquired through, or waived, enlarged or
diminished by, any act or omission of the parties; neither can it be
conferred by the acquiescence of the court. Jurisdiction must exist as a
matter of law (Machado v. Gatdula, G.R. No. 156287, February 16, 2010).

GROUNDS
A. THE FACTS CHARGED IN THE INFORMATION DO NOT
CONSTITUTE AN OFFENSE.
B. THIS HONORABLE COURT HAS NO JURISDICTION OVER THE
SUBJECT-MATTER OF THE CASE.

DISCUSSIONS and ARGUMENTS

I. There is insufficiency of
facts in the information to
indict
the
accused
for
violation of RA 7394.
1. Every information must adhere to the basic provisions of the Rules of
Court with respect to its sufficiency in form and substance.
Accordingly, the Rules of Court specifically, Rule 110, sec. 6 and 9
thereof, provide, to wit:
section 6. Sufficiency of complaint or information. - A
complaint or information is sufficient if it states the name
of the accused; the designation of the offense given by
the statute; the acts or omissions complained of as
constituting the offense; the name of the offended party;
the approximate date of the commission of the offense;
and the place where the offense was committed.
section 9. Cause of the accusation. - The acts or
omissions complained of as constituting the offense and
the qualifying and aggravating circumstances must be
stated in ordinary and concise language and not
necessarily in the language used in the statute but in
terms sufficient to enable a person of common
understanding to know what offense is being charged as
well as its qualifying and aggravating circumstances and
for the court to pronounce judgment.
2. The information, to be sufficient in form and in substance must clearly
allege the facts in an ordinary and concise language that constitute
an offense. In the present case, Accused respectfully submits that the
information is wanting on this particular matter.

3. First. Upon careful perusal of the law involved herein, the law
enumerated at least seven (7) penalties for at least seven (7) different
acts and offenses. In the information filed before this Honorable
Court, there was no particular mention of a specific provision of RA
7394 that the Accused have violated.
4. Second. Assuming without admitting, that the information was based
on the records of the preliminary investigation which was focused on
Article 40 sections A and B of RA 7394, the information would still be
wanting with regard to the elements of the offense.
5. As may be gleaned from the law, there are three elements for
violation of article 40 sections a and b of RA 7394. These are found in
article 23, article 40 (sections a and b) and article 41 (sections a and
b). According to Article 41 section b of RA 7394, lacking of Good
Faith is necessary to make the penalty indicated therein applicable.
which state, to wit:
b) No person shall be subject to the penalties of subarticle (a) of this Article for (1) having sold, offered for
sale or transferred any product and delivered it, if such
delivery was made in good faith, unless he refuses to
furnish on request of the Department, the name and
address of the person from whom he purchased or
received such product and copies of all documents, if
any there be, pertaining to the delivery of the product
to him; (2) having violated Article 40 (a) if he
established a guaranty or undertaking signed by, and
containing the name and address of, the person
residing in the Philippines from whom he received in
good faith the product, or (3) having violated Article 40
(a), where the violation exists because the product is
adulterated by reason of containing a color other than
the permissible one under regulations promulgated by
the Department in this Act, if such person establishes a
guaranty or undertaking signed by, and containing the
name and address, of the manufacturer of the color, to
the effect that such color is permissible, under
applicable regulations promulgated by the Department
in this Act.
6. The above-mentioned provision specifically states that for the penalty
to be applicable, the Accused must be in bad faith. The information
did not clearly state that the Accused acted in bad faith without which,
the Accused cannot be subject to the violation as stated in the law.
7. Third. Assuming for the sake of argument that RA 7394 is not the law
that governs the facts as allege in the information rather a violation of

the Revised Penal Code particularly serious physical injuries. The

Information is still wanting of the necessary facts to constitute an
offense.
8. Under the Revised Penal Code Article 263 which state, to wit:
Art. 263. Serious physical injuries. Any person who
shall wound, beat, or assault another, shall be guilty of
the crime of serious physical injuries and shall suffer:
1. The penalty of prision mayor, if in consequence of the
physical injuries inflicted, the injured person shall
become insane, imbecile, impotent, or blind;
2. The penalty of prision correccional in its medium and
maximum periods, if in consequence of the physical
injuries inflicted, the person injured shall have lost the
use of speech or the power to hear or to smell, or shall
have lost an eye, a hand, a foot, an arm, or a leg or
shall have lost the use of any such member, or shall
have become incapacitated for the work in which he
was therefor habitually engaged;
3. The penalty of prision correccional in its minimum
and medium periods, if in consequence of the physical
injuries inflicted, the person injured shall have become
deformed, or shall have lost any other part of his body,
or shall have lost the use thereof, or shall have been ill
or incapacitated for the performance of the work in
which he as habitually engaged for a period of more
than ninety days;
3. The penalty of arresto mayor in its maximum period to
prision correccional in its minimum period, if the
physical injuries inflicted shall have caused the illness
or incapacity for labor of the injured person for more
than thirty days.
9. In the above-mentioned provision of the Revised Penal Code, the
facts allege in the information does not fall within any of the acts that
are punishable therein.
10.
Thus, the facts charged in the information do not constitute an
offense.

II. The Consumer Act of the

Philippines
specifically
provides the penalties for
violation of its provisions.
The
maximum
penalty
imposed, as provided in the
law,
is
a
maximum
imprisonment of not more
than 5 years and/or fines
hence, this Honorable Court
does not have jurisdiction
over the case.
11.
A cursory reading of the Resolution by the City Prosecutors
Office dated April 30, 2014 and the Information dated May 13, 2014
readily show that this case is not within the exclusive and original
jurisdiction of this Honorable Regional Trial Court.
12.
The Information, which is based on the above-mention
resolution, alleges that the accused violated Paragraphs A and B of
article 40 of Republic Act 7394 or otherwise known as the Consumer
Act of the Philippines. Accordingly, the law provides for the penalty
for such violation. The law states, to wit:
PROHIBITED ACTS AND PENALTIES
Article 40. Prohibited Acts. The following acts and the
causing thereof are hereby prohibited:
a)
the manufacture, importation, exportation, sale,
offering for sale, distribution or transfer of any food, drug,
device or cosmetic that is adulterated or mislabeled;
b)
the adulteration or misbranding of any food, drug,
device or cosmetic;
Article 41. Penalties.
a) Any person who violates any of the provisions of Article
40 hereof shall, upon conviction, be subject to
imprisonment of not less than one (1) year but not more
than five (5) years, or a fine of not less than Five
thousand pesos (P5,000.00) but not more than Ten
thousand pesos (P10,000.00), or both such imprisonment
and fine, in the discretion of the Court.

Should the offense be committed by a juridical person,

the Chairman of the Board of Directors, the President,
General Manager, or the partners and/or the persons
directly responsible therefor shall be penalized.
b)
No person shall be subject to the penalties of subarticle (a) of this Article for (1) having sold, offered for sale
or transferred any product and delivered it, if such
delivery was made in good faith, unless he refuses to
furnish on request of the Department, the name and
address of the person from whom he purchased or
received such product and copies of all documents, if any
there be, pertaining to the delivery of the product to him;
(2) having violated Article 40 (a) if he established a
guaranty or undertaking signed by, and containing the
name and address of, the person residing in the
Philippines from whom he received in good faith the
product, or (3) having violated Article 40 (a), where the
violation exists because the product is adulterated by
reason of containing a color other than the permissible
one under regulations promulgated by the Department in
this Act, if such person establishes a guaranty or
undertaking signed by, and containing the name and
address, of the manufacturer of the color, to the effect
that such color is permissible, under applicable
regulations promulgated by the Department in this Act.
13.
This clearly shows that the case before this Honorable Court is
not within its Jurisdiction since the penalty as provided by law is
within the jurisdiction of the Municipal Trial Court as provided in B.P.
blg. 129 section 32, to wit:
Section 32. Jurisdiction of Metropolitan Trial Courts,
Municipal Trial Courts and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts
in criminal cases. Except in cases falling within the
exclusive original jurisdiction of Regional Trial Courts and
of the Sandiganbayan, the Metropolitan Trial Courts,
Municipal Trial Courts, and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts
shall exercise:
(1) Exclusive original jurisdiction over all violations of city
or municipal ordinances committed within their respective
territorial jurisdiction; and

(2) Exclusive original jurisdiction over all offenses

punishable with imprisonment not exceeding six (6) years
irrespective of the amount of fine, and regardless of other
imposable accessory or other penalties, including the civil
liability arising from such offenses or predicated thereon,
irrespective of kind, nature, value, or amount thereof:
Provided, however, That in offenses involving damage to
property through criminal negligence they shall have
exclusive original jurisdiction thereof. (as amended by
R.A, No. 7691)

14.
According to the Supreme Court in the case of People v.
Purisima, 69 SCRA 341, May 18, 1990, the penalty which attaches to
a particular offense often determines which court has jurisdiction
thereof, and the general rule has been stated to be that no court can
have jurisdiction of an offense punishable by penalties which are
beyond the power of the court to impose. In criminal prosecution,
jurisdiction is determined by the fine and imprisonment prescribed by
law.
15.
In the instant case, RA 7394 article 41 falls within the general
rule as stated in the preceding paragraph. The law provides for
imprisonment of not less than one (1) year but not more than
five (5) years of imprisonment or a fine of not less than
P5,000.00 but not more than P10,000.00 or both hence, the case is
well within the jurisdiction of the Municipal Trial Court not of this
Honorable Court.

PRAYER
WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing, it is most respectfully prayed
that the information be quashed on the ground of lack of jurisdiction over
the subject-matter and/or the facts charged in the information do not
constitute an offense.
Other reliefs just and equitable are likewise prayed for.
Makati City for Dasmarinas City, Cavite. 27 June, 2014.

APOLLO X.C.S. SANGALANG

IBP Lifetime No. 06541; IBP-PPLM Chapter
PTR No. MKT 4232795 - 1/7/2014
MCLE Compliance No. IV-0020939
Role of Attorney No. 40222
5th Floor Builders Center
170 Salcedo Street, Legaspi Village
Makati City 1229
Tel. 208-2606; Cel. 0917-821-6848
Email: apollo.sangalang@lawyer.com

NOTICE OF HEARING, EXPLANATION AND COPY FURNISHED:

The Hon. Branch Clerk of Court

RTC Branch 90
Dasmarinas City, Cavite
Hon. Emmanuel L. Rivera
Assistant City Prosecutor
Office of the City Prosecutor
Dasmarinas City, Cavite
Hon. Vimar M. Barcellano
City Prosecutor
Office of the City Prosecutor
Dasmarinas City, Cavite
NOTICE OF HEARING
Greetings:
Please take note that this Motion to Quash Information will be
submitted for the consideration of this Honorable Court on July 4, 2014.

APOLLO X.C.S. SANGALANG

EXPLANATION
There being no messenger employed by the undersigned to effect
personal service considering that he is preoccupied with other equally
important cases, copy of the foregoing Position Paper shall be sent to the
Respondent via LBC.

APOLLO X.C.S. SANGALANG