Republic of the Philippines

First Judicial Region

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
BRANCH 29
San Fernando City, La Union

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,

CRIM.CASE NO. 12410
Plaintiff,
for
- versus -
VIOLATION OF SECTION 11
JONATHAN BALCITA y Torres,
ART. II OF R.A. 9165
Accused.
x----------------------------x

MOTION TO SUPPRESS EVIDENCE

ACCUSED through the undersigned Public Attorney and unto this
Honorable Court, most respectfully avers that:

1. The above-captioned case was filed because of the Affidavits of

Complaint-Arrest individually executed by FERNANDO MATEO y
Ferrer, MALCOLM JAN BAYASBAS y Prado and TRANQUILINO
GERMONO y Sanchez, all of whom are police officers of the San
Fernando City Police Station. The police officers alleged that:

1.1 Last May 24, 2018 at around 9:00 p.m., they were manning a
checkpoint along Pennsylvania Avenue within the
geographical jurisdiction of Brgy. Madayegdeg, San Fernando
City, La Union;

1.2 At about 11:00 p.m. of said date, a speeding motorcycle driven

by the accused who is allegedly not wearing a helmet and has a
loud muffler moving in the eastward direction was signaled to
stop for verification of his driver’s license and pertinent
documents of his motorcycle;

1.3 They alleged that, instead of heeding their command to halt,

previously accelerated his motorcycle thereby prompting the
police officers to pursue him;

1.4 The pursuit went a long way but ended at the capture and
ultimately the arrest of the accused at Brgy. Canaoay West of
this city;
 1.5 After declaring the arrest of the accused, police mobile arrived
and the arrested suspected was issued a Traffic Violation Ticket
as he was arrested for said violation. Copy of the Traffic
Violation Ticket issued to the accused was attached to the
affidavits of the police officers;

1.6 The accused was brought to the Police Community Precinct

(PCP) where he was found to have in his possession one (1)
self-sealing plastic sachet containing marijuana fruiting tops;
and

1.7 Consequently, the instant case was filed against the accused;

2. The allegations of facts of the police officers as narrated above shows

striking similarities with case of Luz vs. People1. In this case, the
Supreme Court ruled that the arrest of the accused was considered
illegal because the police officer should not have arrested the accused
and subject him to further search if his offense is only a traffic
violation. It further explained that under R.A. 4136, or the Land
Transportation and Traffic Code, the general procedure for dealing
with a traffic violation is not the arrest of the offender, but the
confiscation of the drivers license of the latter, to wit:

Under R.A. 4136, or the Land Transportation and Traffic

Code, the general procedure for dealing with a traffic
violation is not the arrest of the offender, but the
confiscation of the drivers license of the latter:
(underscoring and emphasis supplied)

SECTION 29. Confiscation of Driver's License. Law

enforcement and peace officers of other agencies duly deputized
by the Director shall, in apprehending a driver for any
violation of this Act or any regulations issued pursuant
thereto, or of local traffic rules and regulations not contrary to
any provisions of this Act, confiscate the license of the driver
concerned and issue a receipt prescribed and issued by the
Bureau therefor which shall authorize the driver to operate a
motor vehicle for a period not exceeding seventy-two hours
from the time and date of issue of said receipt. The period so
fixed in the receipt shall not be extended, and shall become
invalid thereafter. Failure of the driver to settle his case within
fifteen days from the date of apprehension will be a ground for
the suspension and/or revocation of his license;

1
G. R. No. 197788, February 29, 2012.
 3. It also noted that the Philippine National Police has also a similar
procedure for flagging down vehicles during the conduct of
checkpoints as encapsulated in its Operations Manual, to wit:

SECTION 7. Procedure in Flagging Dow

n or Accosting Vehicles While in Mobile Car. This rule is a
general concept and will not apply in hot pursuit operations.
The mobile car crew shall undertake the following, when
applicable:

xxx

m. If it concerns traffic violations, immediately issue a

Traffic Citation Ticket (TCT) or Traffic Violation Report
(TVR). Never indulge in prolonged, unnecessary
conversation or argument with the driver or any of the
vehicles occupants;2

4. The accused in the above-captioned case does not dispute that he was
apprehended by police officers MATEO, BAYASBAS and
GERMONO last May 24, 2018 for traffic violation only as evidence
by the sworn statements of these concerned police officers and the
Traffic Violation Ticket they issued against the accused;

5. It is worthy to emphasize that these police officers went beyond what

is expected of them in violation of the rights of the accused against
unreasonable searches. After the issuance of the Traffic Violation
Ticket, what these police officers should have done is to let go of the
accused but their statements prove otherwise, they arrested the
accused. Moreover, accused was searched against his will and under
duress at the Police Community Precinct where he was brought
without the presence of his counsel. This is contradictory to the well
established norm asserted by the Supreme Court in the above cited
case, hence, the arrest of the accused in this case is invalid;

6. In the above-cited case of Luz, when the arrest of the accused was
declared to be illegal, the Supreme Court also took the opportunity to
affirm as inadmissible in evidence all seized items resulting from the
arrest of the accused for being a fruit of a poisonous tree. This principle
has its origin from no less than the Philippine Constitution, to wit:

Any evidence obtained in violation of [the right against

unreasonable searches and seizures] shall be inadmissible for
any purpose in any proceeding.3

2
Id.
3
Philippine Constitution, Art. III, Sec. 3 (b).
 Otherwise known as the exclusionary rule or the fruit of the
poisonous tree doctrine, this rule provides evidence obtained
through unlawful seizures should be excluded as evidence because it
is “the only practical means of enforcing the constitutional injunction
against unreasonable searches and seizures.”4 It ensures that the
fundamental rights to one’s person, houses, papers, and effects are
not lightly infringed upon and are upheld. 5 The Supreme Court
painstakingly resolved the invalidity of the search conducted against
the accused in the Luz case from all possible angles;

7. In this case, the arrest of the accused being against established

standard with the Supreme Court enunciating it as illegal, the
warrantless search subsequently conducted on the accused in the
Police Community Precinct is likewise illegal. The accused was
brought to the police precinct against his will and he did not consent
to the search made on his person at the said police precinct. It is also
with importance to emphasize that he was not assisted by a counsel
after his “arrest” for traffic violations. Clearly, there is no legal basis
for the police officers to search the person of the accused;

8. In view of the foregoing, the evidence specifically the illegal drugs

allegedly confiscated from him at the police precinct must be
suppressed;

9. While he may have failed to object to the illegality of his arrest at the
earliest opportunity, a waiver of an illegal warrantless arrest does
not, however, mean a waiver of the inadmissibility of evidence seized
during the illegal warrantless arrest;6 and

10.This motion is not intended to delay the proceedings but solely for
the above-mentioned purposes.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is respectfully prayed that an

order be issued declaring the illegal drug allegedly confiscated from the
accused and all other evidence emanating from it as “fruits of a poisonous
tree” or inadmissible and thereafter dismiss the instant case for lack of
probable or insufficiency of evidence.

Other just and equitable reliefs under the premises are likewise
prayed for.

4
126 Phil. 738 (1967) [Per C.J. Concepcion, En Banc].
5
People vs. Cogaed, G.R. No. 200334, July 30, 2014.
6
Supra at 2.
 RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this May 29, 2018 at San Fernando
City, La Union, Philippines.

PUBLIC ATTORNEY’S OFFICE

San Fernando City (LU) District Office
Counsel for the Accused
Justice Hall, Sevilla
San Fernando City, La Union
By:

JEFFREY M. AGTARAP
Public Attorney III/ OIC-SFC LU DO
Roll No. 55673; May 2, 2008; Manila
IBP No. 01819; January 5, 2018; IBP Baguio-Benguet Chapter
MCLE Compliance No. V-0005062; December 22, 2014

NOTICE OF HEARING

The OIC-Branch Clerk of Court

RTC Branch 26
San Fernando City, La Union

Greetings! Please submit the foregoing MOTION TO SUPPRESS

EVIDENCE for the consideration and approval of the Honorable Court
immediately upon receipt hereof.

GILBERT R. HUFANA

Copy furnished:

PROS. NOE AQUINO

OFFICE OF THE CITY PROSECUTOR
Justice Hall, Sevilla
San Fernando City, La Union