Republic of the Philippines

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT

Region VII, City of Cebu
Branch _____

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,

Plaintiff,

-versus- Crim Case No. CBA 103508

For: QUALIFIED TRAFFICKING

ROBIN JAMES CHUA

FRAULINE MAY G. SORIA
LURLIE G. SORIA,
Accused.
x------------------x

MOTION TO QUASH

Defendants, by their undersigned attorney, respectfully moves to quash

the information filed against him on the ground that the court trying the
case has no jurisdiction over the offense charged.

ARGUMENTS

Defendants are being accused of violating Section 4, paragraphs A and

B; Section 5, paragraph G, and in relation to Section 6, paragraph C of Anti
Trafficking in Persons Act of 2003, otherwise known as Republic Act (RA)
9208.

Defendants, however, most respectfully submit that this Honorable

Court lacks jurisdiction over the subject matter of the offense for the reason
that the facts stated in the case is not in conformity with Section 9 of RA
9208 due the following reasons:

1. Private plaintiff, Shana Cagandahan, is a resident of Don Fabian, Quezon

City;
2. The alleged transaction of the official acceptance and turning over of the
required amount of money happened at Mcdonalds Ermita Branch;

3. The alleged acts of prostitution happened in Kowloon, Hong Kong;

4. The private plaintiff arrived in Basco, Batanes after her escape from
Lamma Island;

5. The private plaintiff then arrived at Quezon City from Basco, Batanes after
her escape.

According to Section 9 of RA 9208 to wit:

Section 9. Venue. A criminal action arising from violation of this Act

shall be filed where the offense was committed, or where any of its elements
occurred, or where the trafficked person actually resides at the time of the
commission of the offense: Provided, That the court where the criminal
action is first filed shall acquire jurisdiction to the exclusion of other courts.

The information was filed in the Regional Trial Court in Region VII, City
of Cebu cannot constitute a criminal prosecution for it is clear, based from
the complaint affidavit, that Cebu City RTC has no jurisdiction over the case
since the alleged crime is not committed within its proximity. Respondent
was also a resident of Quezon City during the time that the offense was
allegedly committed.

In accordance with this, it is a well established rule in the Rules of

Criminal Procedure Rule 110 Section 15 (a) that subject to existing laws,
the criminal action shall be instituted and tried in the court of the
municipality or territory where the offense was committed or where any of
its essential ingredients occurred.

This was affirmed in the case of Uy v. Court of Appeals which stated that:

It is a fundamental rule that for jurisdiction to be acquired by courts

in criminal cases the offense should have been committed or any one of its
essential ingredients took place within the territorial jurisdiction of the court.
Territorial jurisdiction in criminal cases is the territory where the court has
jurisdiction to take cognizance or to try the offense allegedly committed
therein by the accused. Thus, it cannot take jurisdiction over a person
charged with an offense allegedly committed outside of that limited
territory. Furthermore, the jurisdiction of a court over the criminal case is
determined by the allegations in the complaint or information. And once it is
so shown, the court may validly take cognizance of the case. However, if the
evidence adduced during the trial show that the offense was committed
somewhere else, the court should dismiss the action for want of jurisdiction.

Since it was not established in the complaint affidavit or in the

Information that the crime was committed within its jurisdiction, this
Honorable Court cannot take cognizance of the case.

In view of all the foregoing, the defendants submit that the Honorable
Court has no jurisdiction over the case. Therefore, cannot be a basis of any
criminal prosecution

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed that the information filed against the

accused be dismissed.

Other just and equitable reliefs are also prayed for.

Manila, 2 December 2017

Atty. Enna May H. Hermoso

Counsel for Accused

Atty. Jerome Vic O. Espino

Counsel for Accused