Preview

Misolas vs Panga

Powerful Essays
Open Document
Open Document
3965 Words
Grammar
Grammar
Plagiarism
Plagiarism
Writing
Writing
Score
Score
Misolas vs Panga
Misolas vs. Panga [GR 83341, 30 January 1990]
En Banc, Cortes (J): 11 concur, 1 concurs in result, 2 dissented in separate opinions
Facts:
After receiving information from an unidentified informant that members of the New People's Army
(NPA) were resting in a suspected "underground house" in Foster Village, Del Carmen, Pili, Camarines Sur, elements of the Philippine Constabulary (PC) raided said house in the early morning of 8 August 1987. Three persons were inside the house, Arnel P. Misolas and two women known by the aliases "Ka Donna" and "Ka
Menchie" but the women were able to escape in the confusion during the raid. The house was searched and the raiders found in a red bag under a pillow allegedly used by Misolas a .20 gauge Remington shotgun and 4 live rounds of ammunition. Petitioner was arrested and brought to the PC headquarters. On 4 September 1987, an information charging Misolas with illegal possession of firearms and ammunition under Presidential
Decree 1866 was filed by the provincial fiscal. The information alleged that the firearm and ammunition were used in furtherance of subversion so as to qualify the offense under the third paragraph of Section 1 of PD
1866. Upon arraignment, Misolas, with the assistance of counsel de oficio pleaded "not guilty" to the charge.
However, a few days later, the same counsel filed a motion to withdraw the plea on the ground that there was
Constitutional Law II, 2005 (
4
)
Narratives (Berne Guerrero) basis for the filing of a motion to quash. Judge Benjamin V. Panga, as Judge of RTC Branch 33, Cadlan, Pili,
Camarines Sur, gave Misolas time to file a motion to quash. Misolas filed a motion to quash on the grounds
(1) that the facts charged do not constitute an offense because the information does not charge the proper offense since from the allegations the offense that may be charged is either subversion or rebellion; and (2) that the trial court had no jurisdiction over the person of

You May Also Find These Documents Helpful

Related Topics