Motion To Quash 3j5p9

Republic of the Philippines National Capital Judicial Region METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT Quezon City, Branch 32

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,

- versus -

Criminal Case No. 06-135919

NORA ANGELA PASTOR, Accused. x------------------------------------------x

URGENT MOTION TO QUASH INFORMATION

Accused, by counsel, unto this Honorable Court, respectfully moves for the quashal of the Information on the following grounds and arguments:

GROUND

THIS HONORABLE COURT HAS NO JURISDICTION OVER THE OFFENSE CHARGED

ARGUMENTS/DISCUSSION

Pursuant to the Conclusiveness of Judgment principle, the Honorable Court has no jurisdiction to try the present case since the validity and authenticity of the Contract of 1

Lease, subject matter of the case, has already been itted and ed upon in prior actions by the Metropolitan Trial Court and the Regional Trial Court of Kalookan City

Rule 39, Section 47(c) of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure states that:

“Section 47. Effect of judgment or final orders. – The effect of a judgment or final order rendered by a court of the Philippines, having jurisdiction to pronounce the judgment or final order, may be as follows: xxx

xxx

xxx

c) In any other litigation between the same parties or their successors in interest, that only is deemed to have been adjudged in a former judgment or final order which appears upon its face to have been so adjudged, or which was actually and necessarily included therein or necessary thereto.” (emphasis supplied)

Simply put, issues actually and directly resolved in a former suit cannot again be raised in any future case between the same parties, even it it involves a different cause or causes of action. As held in REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES (CIVIL AERONAUTICS ISTRATION) vs. RAMON YU, TEOFISTA VILLAMALA, LOURDES YU and YU SE PENG, G.R. No. 157557, March 10, 2006:

“At this juncture, we need to stress that res judicata has two concepts:(1) "bar by prior judgment" as enunciated in Rule 39, Section 47(b)of the Rules of Civil

2

Procedure; and (2) "conclusiveness of judgment" in Rule 39, Section 47(c). There is "bar by prior judgment" when, as between the first case where the judgment was rendered, and the second case that is sought to be barred, there is identity of parties, subject matter, and causes of action. But where there is identity of parties and subject matter in the first and second cases, but no identity of causes of action, the first judgment is conclusive only as to those matters actually and directly controverted and determined and not as to matters merely involved therein. This is "conclusiveness of judgment." Under the doctrine of conclusiveness of judgment, facts and issues actually and directly resolved in a former suit cannot again be raised in any future case between the same parties, even if the latter suit may involve a different claim or cause of action. The identity of causes of action is not required but merely identity of issues. ” (emphasis supplied)

Furthermore, in CHRIS GARMENTS CORPORATION, vs. HON. PATRICIA A. STO. TOMAS and CHRIS GARMENTS WORKERS UNION-PTGWO LOCAL CHAPTER No. 832, G.R. No. 167426, January 12, 2009, the doctrine of "conclusiveness of judgment" provides that issues actually and directly resolved in a former suit cannot again be raised in any future case between the same parties involving a different cause of action. Under this doctrine, identity of causes of action is not required but merely identity of issues. Otherwise stated, conclusiveness of judgment bars the relitigation of particular facts or issues in another litigation between the same parties on a different claim or cause of action.

It is respectfully manifested, as the accused has previously manifested over and over again during the preliminary investigation of the present harassment criminal complaint before the Office of the City Prosecutor, that the prosecution can not argue that the Contract of Lease, subject matter of this case, has been falsified. A copy of the Memorandum (summarizing her arguments) submitted by the accused in that forum is attached as Annex A,

3

Simply stated, the validity and authenticity of the said Contract of Lease has been implicitly itted by herein private complainant Jovito Cavite in “Nora Angela Pastor vs. Jovito Cavite”, previously docketed as Civil Case No. 04-27631 (for Ejectment) before the Metropolitan Trial Court of Kalookan City (hereafter, MTC). He did not question the existence and due execution of the said Contract of Lease. Instead, Cavite itted its existence and due execution in his Answer with Counterclaim (a copy is attached as Annex B), to wit:

“19.

The lease remained verbal even after the demise of Mauro Pastor in

1994. It was only in 1996 and 1997 that one year leases were entered into between Defendant and Elvira Pastor. After 1997, the leases were no longer in writing and was allowed to continue until the demand to vacate the premises came in October 2003 because Defendant would not agree to pay two months deposit as demanded by Plaintiff which Defendant found inappropriate because they have been occupying the premises since 1971, and have been dealing with the widow, Elvira Pastor.” (emphasis supplied)

The MTC gave credence to the complaint of the plaintiff (accused herein) in that said action and favorably decided in favor of the plaintiff (accused herein). A certified machine copy of the Judgment of the MTC dated April 28, 2005 is attached as Annex C.

While the Judgment was appealed by defendant Jovito Cavite (private complainant herein) to the Regional Trial Court of Kalookan City (hereafter, RTC), it is quite glaring that the appellant did not raise the issue of the alleged forgery of the Contract of Lease. The most that appellant did was to argue, as an obvious afterthought, that he committed a mistake in itting

4

the existence and due execution of the Contract of Lease. This argument was struck down by the appellate court in its Decision (a certified machine copy is attached as Annex D) as being barred by estoppel, to wit:

“The second issue is barred by estoppel. What defendant previously itted he cannot now deny after it turned out as adverse to his interest.”

The dispositive portion of the Decision dated April 28, 2005 is quoted, as follows:

“WHEREFORE, finding no basis to reverse, modify, or amend the Judgment dated October 14, 2004 issued by the Metropolitan Trial Court, Branch 49, this City in Civil Case No. C-27631 for Ejectment, the same is hereby AFFIRMED en toto.”

(emphasis supplied)

It should be clarified and stressed that the appellant raised the issue of the alleged falsification, for the first time, only when he filed the Complaint-Affidavit (for Falsification of Public Document) on April 5, 2005, or more than fifteen (15) months since appellee filed an Unlawful Detainer case against the appellant. It only highlighted its character as being obviously an afterthought. If there is any falsification, it was certainly not the accused who should be charged therefor.

It is now respectfully prayed that the foregoing circumstances necessitate the timely intervention of this Honorable Court to prevent a miscarriage of justice and the oppressive persecution of an innocent person.

5

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, the foregoing premises considered, it is respectfully prayed that the foregoing Urgent Motion to Quash Information be granted by this Honorable Court.

Quezon City, June 12, 2009.

The Law Firm Of ANDREI BON C. TAGUM & ASSOCIATES Counsel for Accused No. 12C Malamig St., Teachers’ Village West Quezon City

By:

KENNETH J. JUSAY IBP No. 788096-4/14/09-QC PTR No. 2525051-6/8/09-QC Roll No. 56643 MCLE Exempt (itted to the Bar: April 30, 2009)

NOTICE OF HEARING/COPY FURNISHED

Office of the City Prosecutor Hall of Justice Quezon City Brillantes (Nachura) Navarro Jumamil Private Prosecutor

6

105-B ECJ Condominium Bldg., Real corner Arzobispo St., Intramuros, Manila Branch Clerk of Court Metropolitan Trial Court Quezon City Branch 32 GREETINGS: Please submit this Urgent Motion to Quash Information on July 28, 2009 at 1:30 p.m. for the consideration and approval of this Honorable Court.

KENNETH J. JUSAY

EXPLANATION A copy of the foregoing Urgent Motion to Quash Information was filed and served upon the prosecution via ed mail on grounds of proximity of the offices of counsels, practicability and time constraints.

KENNETH J. JUSAY

7