REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT

NATIONAL CAPITAL JUDICIAL REGION
BRANCH 110, PASAY CITY

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,

Crim. Case. No. R-PSY-18-
159143-CR
-versus- FOR: Violation of Sec.
119 of R.A. No. 10863
(Customs
BEAU ALDRICH SIQUIAN Modernization & Tariff
Accused. Act)
x-------------------------------------------x

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Crim. Case. No. R-PSY-18

159142-CR
FOR: Violation of Sec. 4, Art.
-versus- 11 of R.A. No. 9165
(Comprehensive
Dangerous Drugs Act of
BEAU ALDRICH SIQUIAN 2002)
Accused.
x-------------------------------------------x

MOTION TO QUASH

Accused, BEAU ALDRICH SIQUIAN, by counsel, unto this

Honorable Court, respectfully moves for the quashal of the two
(2) Information on the ground:

THAT THE FACTS CHARGED DO NOT CONSTITUTE AN

OFFENSE

PREFATORY STATEMENT

The accused is seeking the dismissal of the herein below

information on the ground that the facts charged do not
constitute an offense.

1
 Let it be very clear that by filing this motion as well as
their admission to bail, the accused are not waiving their right
to question the illegality of their arrest without a warrant; their
subsequent arbitrary and illegal detention; and the denial by
the arresting officers of their constitutional and statutory rights.

ARGUMENTS/DISCUSSION

1. The accused has been charged with violation of

Sec. 119 of Republic Act No. 10863, otherwise known as the
Customs Modernization and Tariff Act in an Information which
reads as follows:

INFORMATION

“The undersigned Senior Assistant City Prosecutor

accuses BEAU ALDRICH SIQUIAN y DEL ROSARIO of
violation of Sec. 119 of Republic Act No. 10863,
otherwise known as the Customs Modernization and
Tariff Act, committed as follows:

That on or about the 28th day of February 2018, in

Pasay City, Metro Manila, Philippines and within the
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, above-named
accused, without authority of the law, did then and
there willfully, unlawfully import into the country a
parcel, coming from the United States of America,
containing brownish liquid substance with a new
volume of 15.9 ml and brownish substance with a net
weight of 4.188 grams of Marijuana, a dangerous drug,
being the consignee thereof.”

CONTRARY TO LAW.
02 March 2018, Pasay City.

(sgd.)
LUIS CHRISTOPHER A. BALLELOS
Senior Assistant City Prosecutor
Roll of Attorneys No. 48568; Manila 1
MCLE NO. V-0024605 (12-28-16)
IBP NO. 1051664 (01-03-17)

Approved:
2
 (sgd.)
BENJAMIN B. LANTO
O.I.C. – City Prosecutor

2. Likewise, in a separate information involving the

same facts and circumstances mentioned in the previous
information, accused has been charged with violation of Sec.
4, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, otherwise known as the
Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002 in an Information
which reads as follows:

INFORMATION

“The undersigned Senior Assistant City Prosecutor

accuses BEAU ALDRICH SIQUIAN y DEL ROSARIO of
violation of Sec. 4, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165,
otherwise known as the Comprehensive Dangerous
Drugs Act of 2002, committed as follows:

That on or about the 28th day of February 2018, in

Pasay City, Metro Manila, Philippines and within the
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, above-named
accused, without authority of the law, did then and
there willfully, unlawfully import into the country
brownish liquid substance with a new volume of 15.9 ml
and brownish substance with a net weight of 4.188
grams of Marijuana, a dangerous drug, being the
consignee of a parcel coming from the United States of
America.”

CONTRARY TO LAW.
02 March 2018, Pasay City.

(sgd.)
LUIS CHRISTOPHER A. BALLELOS
Senior Assistant City Prosecutor
Roll of Attorneys No. 48568; Manila 1
MCLE NO. V-0024605 (12-28-16)
IBP NO. 1051664 (01-03-17)

Approved:

3
 (sgd.)
BENJAMIN B. LANTO
O.I.C. – City Prosecutor

3. Section 3 of Rule 117 (Motion to Quash) of the Rules

of Court expressly provides:

“Section 3. Grounds. — The accused may

move to quash the complaint or information on any
of the following grounds:

(a) That the facts charged do not constitute an

offense;”

xxx xxx xxx

4. The fundamental test on the viability of a motion to

quash on the ground that the facts averred in the information
do not amount to an offense is whether the facts asseverated
would establish the essential elements of the crime defined in
the law. In this examination, matters aliunde are not
considered.1

5. In the case of People of the Philippines vs. De la

Rosa2, the Supreme Court held:

“[W]here in the hearing on a motion to quash

predicated on the ground that the allegations of the
information do not charge an offense, facts have
been brought out by evidence presented by both
parties which destroy the prima facie truth accorded
to the allegations of the information on the
hypothetical admission thereof, as is implicit in the
nature of the ground of the motion to quash, it
would be pure technicality for the court to close its
eyes to said facts and still give due course to the
prosecution of the case already shown to be weak
even to support possible conviction, and hold the
accused to what would clearly appear to be a
merely vexatious and expensive trial, on her part,
and a wasteful expense of precious time on the part
of the court, as well as of the prosecution. (Emphasis
supplied.)
1
Domingo vs. Sandiganbayan G.R. No. 109376. January 20, 2000
2
G.R. No. L-34112, 25 June 1980

4
 6. A strict reading of the criminal information filed in the
above-entitled cases indubitably show that both information
failed to state directly and explicitly every fact and
circumstances necessary to constitute the offenses charged, to
wit: (1) violation of Sec. 119 of Republic Act No. 10863 otherwise
known as the Customs Modernization and Tariff Act; and (2)
violation of Sec. 4, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, otherwise
known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.
This is because of the fact that both information failed to
provide details on how the offenses charged were committed
under the above cited provisions. Simply stated, both
information failed to establish all the elements of Restricted
Importation/Exportation under Sec. 119 of R.A. No. 10863 and
Importation of Dangerous Drugs under Sec. 4, Article II of R.A.
No. 9165.

7. Records will show on 28 February 2018 at around 3:00

p.m. at the Central Mail Exchange Center (CMEC) – Philippine
Postal Corporation (PPC), Domestic Road, Pasay City, accused
allegedly claimed a parcel from the U.S.A, containing 2 self-
sealing foil packs inside it, one under the name of the accused
and the other under the name of a certain Gian Carlo Santos.
However, when the said parcel was opened by a customs
official and before the parcel was placed under the possession
and control of the accused, he allegedly smelled a foul odor
similar to that of marijuana. Further, record also states that the
brownish liquid substance has a net volume of 15.9 ml while the
brownish substance has a net weight of 4.188 grams.

8. However, under the above quoted two separate

information, both merely stated therein “that the accused
unlawfully and feloniously import into the country a parcel,
coming from the United States of America, containing brownish
liquid substance with a new volume of 15.9 ml and brownish
substance with a net weight of 4.188 grams of Marijuana, a
dangerous drug, being the consignee thereof.”

9. Clearly, nowhere from the said separate information

would show how the accused committed Restricted
Importation under Section 119 of R.A. No. 10863 and
Importation of Dangerous Drugs under Sec. 4, Article II of R.A.
No. 9165, which is, under the records, by receiving a parcel
allegedly containing dangerous drugs.

5
 10. Secondly, assuming without admitting that the
accused was consignee of the subject parcel allegedly
containing dangerous drugs, it would must be emphasized
herein that the subject parcel allegedly containing dangerous
drugs has NOT yet been placed under the possession and
control of the accused at the time he was claiming for the said
parcel as it was outrightly subjected to examination by a
customs official.

11. In the 2015 case of People vs. Chi Chan Liu3, the
Supreme Court held:

“As previously mentioned, the crime of

importation of regulated drugs is committed by
importing or bringing any regulated drug into the
Philippines without being authorized by the law.
Indeed when one brings something or causes
something to be brought into the country, he has
necessarily possession of the same. Necessarily,
therefore, importation cannot be proven without first
establishing possession affirming the fact that
possession is a condition sine qua non for it would
rather be unjust to convict one of illegal
importationof regulated drugs when he is not proven
to be in possession thereof.”

12. Thus, applying the foregoing rule, it could be said

that the offenses charged under the two separate information
have no legs to stand. This is considering the fact that the
information failed to establish material or juridical possession of
the accused over the seized marijuana. Moreover, mere
receipt of dangerous drugs in the absence of material or
juridical possession cannot be considered within the term
“importation”4 as defined by the law. .

13. Aside from the failure of the two separate

information to establish all the elements of the offense
charged, the same also failed to state what does the phrase
“brownish liquid substance with net volume of 15.9 ml”, is
referring to.

3
G.R. No. 189272, January 21 2015.
4
Sec. 101 (z) of the R.A. No. 10863: “Importation refers to the act of bringing in of goods from a foreign
territory into Philippine territory, whether for consumption, warehousing, or admission as defined in this
Act.”

6
 14. Moreover, a perusal of the Sec. 1401 of Republic Act
No. 10863 – a provision under R.A. No. 10863 which provides for
the penalties for Restricted Importation under Sec. 119 - would
show that the penalty for unlawful or restricted importation
depends on the appraised value of the goods unlawfully
imported, which is, apparently an element of the
aforementioned offense.

“Sec. 1401. Unlawful Importation or Exportation. –

Any person who shall fraudulently import or export or
bring into or outside of the Philippines any goods, or
assist in so doing, contrary to law, or shall receive,
conceal, buy, sell, or in any manner facilitate the
transportation, concealment, or sale of such goods
after importation, or shall commit technical
smuggling as defined in this Act shall be penalized
by:

(a) Imprisonment of not less than thirty (30) days and

one (1) day but not more than six (6) months, or a
fine of not less than twenty-five thousand pesos
(P25,000.00) but not more than seventy-five
thousand pesos (P75,000.00), or both, if the
appraised value of the goods unlawfully imported,
to be determined in the manner prescribed under
this Act, including duties and taxes, of the goods
unlawfully imported does not exceed two hundred
fifty thousand pesos (P250,000.00);

(b) Imprisonment of not less than six (6) months and

one (1) day but not more than one (1) year, or a fine
of not less than seventy-five thousand pesos
(P75,000.00) but not more than one hundred fifty
thousand pesos (P150,000.00), or both, if the
appraised value of the goods unlawfully imported,
to be determined in the manner prescribed under
this Act, including duties and taxes, exceeds two
hundred fifty thousand pesos (P250,000.00) but not
more than five hundred thousand pesos
(P500,000.00);

(c) Imprisonment of not less than one (1) year and

one (1) day but not more than three (3) years, or a
fine of not less than one hundred fifty thousand
pesos (P150,000.00) but not more than three
7
hundred thousand pesos (P300,000.00) or both, if the
appraised value of the goods unlawfully imported,
to be determined in the manner prescribed under
this Act, including duties and taxes, exceeds five
hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00) but not more
than one million pesos (P 1,000,000.00);

(d) Imprisonment of not less than three (3) years and

one (1) day but not more than six (6) years, or a fine
of not less than three hundred thousand pesos
(P300,000.00) but not more than one million five
hundred thousand pesos (P 1,500,000.00), or both, if
the appraised value of the goods unlawfully
imported, to be determined in the manner
prescribed under this Act, including duties and taxes,
exceeds one million pesos (P1,000,000.00) but not
more than five million pesos (P5,000,0 00.00);

(e) Imprisonment of not less than six (6) years and

one (1) day but not more than twelve (12) years, or
a fine of not less than one million five hundred
thousand pesos (P 1,500,000.00) but not more than
fifteen million pesos (P15,000,000.00), or both, if the
appraised value of the goods unlawfully imported,
to be determined in the manner prescribed under
this Act, including duties and taxes, exceeds five
million pesos (P5,000,000.00) but not more than fifty
million pesos (P50,000,000.00);

(f) Imprisonment of not less than twelve (12) years

and one (1) day but not more than twenty (20)
years, or a fine of not less than fifteen mill-inn pesos
(P15,000,000.00) but not more than fifty million pesos
(P50,000,000.00), or both, if the appraised value of
the goods unlawfully imported, to be determined in
the manner prescribed under this Act, including
duties and taxes, exceeds fifty million pesos
(P50,000,000.00) but not more than two hundred
million pesos (P200,000,000.00);

(g) If the appraised value of the goods unlawfully

imported to be determined in the manner
prescribed under this Act, including duties and taxes,
exceeds two hundred million pesos (P200,000,000.00)
or if the aggregate amount of the appraised value
8
 of the goods which are the subject of unlawful
importation committed in more than one instance,
including duties and taxes, exceeds two hundred
million pesos (P200,000,000.00), the same shall be
deemed as a heinous crime and shall be punishable
with a penalty of reclusion perpetua and a fine of
not less than fifty million pesos (P50,000,000.00); and

(h) The penalty of prision mayor shall be imposed

when the crime of serious physical injuries shall have
been committed, and the penalty of reclusion
perpetua shall be imposed when the crime of
homicide shall have been committed by reason or
on the occasion of the unlawful importation.

In applying the above scale of penalties, an

offender who is a foreigner shall be deported
without further proceedings after serving the
sentence. If the offender is a public officer or
employee, the penalty which is the next higher in
degree shall be imposed in addition to the penalty
of perpetual disqualification from public office, and
disqualification to vote and to participate in any
public election. If the offender fails to pay the fine,
subsidiary imprisonment shall be served.

When, upon trial for violation of this section, the

defendant is shown to have had possession of the
goods in question, possession shall be deemed
sufficient evidence to authorize conviction unless the
defendant shall explain the possession to the
satisfaction of the court: Provided, That each act of
unlawful importation or exportation shall be deemed
as a separate offense: Provided, however, That
payment of the tax due after apprehension shall not
constitute a valid defense in any prosecution, under
this section: Provided, further, That outright smuggling
shall also be punishable under this section: Provided,
finally, That the rights and privileges provided in this
Act for the importers, consignees, exporters, service
providers, third parties and other third parties who
committed this offense shall be revoked.”

15. Clearly, upon reading of the above-quoted

information involving violation of sec. 119 of R.A. No. 10863, the
9
same would show that the appraised value of the restricted
goods was not alleged on the information.

16. Thus, the apparent defects in the allegations in the

Information particularly on the accusatory portion hereby
warrants the quashal of the two separate information.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, WHEREFORE, upon prior notice and hearing,

it is respectfully prayed of this Honorable Court that two above-
quoted information be dismissed on the ground that the facts
charged do not constitute an offense.

Other measures of relief, just and equitable in the

premises, are likewise prayed for.

Makati City for Pasay City, 27 March 2018.

QUIAL GINEZ BELTRAN & YU

10L, Burgundy Corporate Tower
252 Sen. Gil Puyat Avenue, 1200 Makati City
Tel. No. 8935181 / Telefax 8300712
Email @ gqrblawoffices@gqrblaw.com

By:

SANTIAGO C. QUIAL
Roll No. 40082
PTR. No. 5829003/01-10-18/Pasay City
IBP No.024951/01-09-18/PPLM
MCLE No. V-0024167/04-14-16/Pasig City

AILENE B. BARBARA-CAYACO
Roll No. 64298
PTR No. 6646640/01-18-18/Makati City
IBP No. 024955/01-09-18/Quezon City
MCLE No. V-0021733/05-16-16/Pasig City

10
 IRENE ANN Y. LIPAT
Roll No. 63648
PTR No. 6646639/01-18-18/Makati City
IBP No. 024954/01-09-18/Makati City
MCLE No. V-0021761/05-16-16/Pasig City

MARY JANE C. PEREZ

Roll No. 67579
PTR No. 6647423/01-23-18/Makati
IBP No. 024953/01-09-18/Makati
MCLE Compliance Certificate No. N/A
(Admitted to the Bar in May 2017)

THE CLERK OF COURT

RTC, BRANCH 110, PASAY CITY

Greetings:

Please submit the foregoing with Motion for consideration

and approval on 6 April 2018 at 8:30 a.m. in the morning upon
receipt hereof.

SANTIAGO C. QUAIL

OFFICE OF THE CITY PROSECUTOR

PASAY CITY

Gentlemen:

Please take notice that the foregoing Motion will be

submitted for consideration and approval on 6 April 2018 at
8:30 a.m. in the morning upon receipt hereof.

SANTIAGO C. QUIAL

COPY FURNISHED:

OFFICE OF THE CITY PROSECUTOR

Pasay City
11
12