Finding Nemo Law Office

P. Sherman 42 Walabyway, Sydney

Cebu City

Tel. no.: 830-6000

Mayor Job Hutt

831 Dunno St.

Cebu City

Re: Possible Dismissal on the Ground of Speedy Disposition of Cases

Dear Mayor Job Hutt,

I am writing in behalf of Finding Nemo Law Offices. This letter will inform you of the
chances of dismissal of the criminal case file against you for non-filing of your
Statement of Assets, Liabilities, and Net worth (SALN).

The facts as we know are as written below. Please let us know if there is anything
we miss.

You were first elected as mayor in Municipality X in 2007. You are now a private
citizen after serving for three terms as mayor. Unfortunately, you still have a pending
Ombudsman case. A concerned citizen filed a complaint before the Ombudsman in
2010 against you for non-filing of your SALN for the years 2009 and 2010. After
conduction a preliminary investigation, the Ombudsman-Visayas graft prosecutor
issued a resolution in 2011 charging you with violation of Section 8 in relation to
Section 11 of RA 6713 for non-filing of his SALN. You filed a motion for
reconsideration which was eventually denied only in 2016.

When you engaged our services this January of 2017, you were already been
arraigned at one of the courts here in Cebu City. Moreover, your former counsel has
suffered a heart stroke and now incapacitated to represent the mayor. Lastly, your
case is now at the stage of presentation of second witness for the prosecution.

1
The issues and our brief answers to the issues involved in your case are:

1) Whether Mayor Job Hutt’s right to speedy disposition of cases was violated

Yes, your right to speedy disposition of cases was violated when the Ombudsman
failed to act on this Motion for Reconsideration immediately.

2) Whether filing a motion to quash on the ground of denial of the right to speedy
disposition of cases will prosper

Yes, filing a motion to quash on the ground of denial of right to speedy disposition of
cases will prosper. Such ground would be based on the lack of authority of the officer
who filed the information.

3) Whether the ground of denial of the right to speedy disposition of cases prosper
even if raised after arraignment

Yes, the failure to raise the motion to quash on the ground of lack of authority of the
officer who filed the information does not constitute of a waiver of any objections.

Under the Constitution, the right of a person to the speedy disposition of cases is
guaranteed. It is only those cases where there is reasonable justification that a delay
in the proceedings would not violate the right of the person to the speedy disposition
of cases. In your case, the Ombudsman failed to act on your motion for
reconsideration for several years. Moreover, the Ombudsman did not present any
reason to justify such delay in the conduct of the preliminary investigation. Therefore,
the failure of the Ombudsman to act immediately on your motion for reconsideration
violated your constitutional right.

A motion to quash is a remedy provided under the law in order to dismiss criminal
cases. Rule 117 of the Rules of Court, the law which provides this remedy,
enumerates the instances wherein a person may successfully dismiss a case by
filing a motion to quash. In your case, we would like to advance the ground that you
were denied of your right to speedy disposition of cases. However, such ground is
not one of those expressly mentioned in Section 3 of Rule 117. In a case decided by
the Supreme Court, specifically Torres vs Sandiganbayan, the court upheld such
ground in relation to the loss of authority of the officer who files the information which
is one of the grounds expressly mentioned in the Rule 117. The Ombudsman, acting
on your motion for reconsideration, incurred delay without any reasonable
justification. Because of this delay, he lost his right to file information against you
based of his investigation.

Moreover, as a general rule, a motion to quash information, should be raised before

a person pleads. However, in your case, you have already been arraigned which is

2
already too late. Worry not, because the ground we are filing to dismiss your case is
one of the exception provided for under the law where the failure to raise a motion to
quash is not fatal. We could still successfully raise a motion to quash even if your
case is already on the stage of presenting the second witness of the prosecution.

Looking at the laws and decisions of the Supreme Court, I am pleased to inform you
that the chances of the dismissal of your case are high. The law office highly
recommends that you raise a motion to quash at the earliest possible time you can in
the conduct of the proceedings of your case so that you may be spared from
incurring more expenses

Respectfully yours,

Christian Lulu A. Kong, Associate Attorney

Finding Nemo Law Office