654 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Denial of a Motion to Quash (Being Interlocutory) for Want

of a Probable Cause, Not Appealable: Exceptions

ANNOTATION

DENIAL OF A MOTION TO QUASH (BEING

INTERLOCUTORY) FOR WANT OF A PROBABLE
CAUSE, NOT APPEALABLE: EXCEPTIONS
By *
ALICIA GONZALEZ-DECANO

_____________________

In the above entitled case, the Supreme Court maintained

that it is generally the function of the Ombudsman to
determine whether or not the petitioner should be
subjected to the expenses, rigors and embarrassment of
trial, but he cannot do so arbitrarily. There are exceptions
enumerated in Brocka v. Enrile (G.R. Nos. 69863-65,
December 10, 1990, 192 SCRA 183, 188-189) were these
will be discussed as an issue in this case.
For preliminary purposes, a definition of a motion to
quash is in order.
Motion to Quash. A motion to quash is a special
pleading filed by the defendants before entering his place,
which hypothetically admits the truth of the facts spelled
out in the complaint or information at the same time that it
sets up a matter which, if duly proved, would preclude
further proceedings. (Pamaran, The 1985 Rules on
Criminal Procedure, Central Professional Books Inc., Q.C.,
2001, p. 317).
Nature and characteristics of a Motion to Quash.
By a motion to quash, the defendant assumes the facts
alleged in the information to be true. (People vs. Lim Hoa,
103 Phil.

_______________
 * Judge (Ret.), Law Professor and Professorial Lecturer, UST
Graduate School (Law) and Consultant (Law and Political Science
Cluster).

655

VOL. 478, DECEMBER 19, 2005 655

Denial of a Motion to Quash (Being Interlocutory) for Want
of a Probable Cause, Not Appealable: Exceptions

1169, cited by Pamaran, supra). Courts, therefore, in

resolving a Motion to Quash cannot consider facts contrary
to those alleged in the information or which do not appear
on the face of the information (Milo vs. Salonga, 152 SCRA
113 [1987]).
An order denying a motion to quash is interlocutory in
character and absent a clear showing that the trial judge
has committed a grave abuse of discretion or acted in
excess of jurisdiction, the order is not appealable. (Joseph
vs. Villaluz, 89 SCRA 324 [1979]).
The determination of its correctness, if at all, should be
brought on appeal after the trial of the case. If the court
has jurisdiction to take cognizance of the criminal case and
to decide the motion to quash, neither certiorari nor
prohibition may lie against an order denying a motion to
quash; appeal in due time after trial on the merits is the
obvious and only remedy therefore. (Pamaran, supra).
Probable Cause·Probable cause for the purpose of
filing a criminal information, has been defined as such
facts as are sufficient to engender a well-founded belief
that a crime has been committed and that respondent is
probably guilty thereof. It is a reasonable ground of
presumption that a matter is, or may be well-founded, such
a state of facts in the mind of the prosecutor as would lead
a person of ordinary caution and prudence to believe, or
entertain an honest or strong suspicion, that a thing is so.
The term does not mean „actual and positive cause‰ nor
does it import absolute certainty. (Osorio vs. Desierto, 472
SCRA 559 [2005])
Motion to Quash distinguished from Demurrer to
Evidence.
Point of time, a motion to quash is filed before the
defendant enters his plea to the complaint or information,
while a demurrer to evidence is filed after the prosecution
has rested its case. Further, a motion to quash does not go
into the merits of the case, but is rather anchored on
matters not directly concerned with the question of guilt or
innocence of the accused, while a motion to dismiss is based
upon the inadequacy

656

656 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Denial of a Motion to Quash (Being Interlocutory) for Want
of a Probable Cause, Not Appealable: Exceptions

of the evidence adduced by the prosecution in support of

the accusation. Lastly, motions to quash are governed by
Rule 117 of the 2000 Rules of Criminal Procedure while
demurrers to evidence are governed by Rule 119, Section 23
thereof. (Pamaran, supra)
Grounds for Motion to Quash. Section 3 of Rule 117
enumerates the grounds for a Motion to Quash to wit:

(a) that the facts charged do not constitute an offense;

(b) that the court trying the case has no jurisdiction
over the offense charged;
(c) that the court trying the case has no jurisdiction
over the person of the accused;
(d) that the officers who filed the information had no
authority to do so;
(e) that it does not conform substantially to the
prescribed form;
(f) that more than one offense is charged except when
a single punishment for various offenses is
prescribed by law;
(g) that the criminal action or liability has been
extinguished;
(h) that it contains averments which, if true, would
constitute a legal excuse or justification; and
(i) that the accused has been previously convicted or
acquitted of the offense charge, or the case against
him was dismissed or otherwise transmitted
without his express consent.

In this instant case, the Supreme Court ruled:

„x x x Courts do not interfere with the discretion of the Ombudsman

to determine whether there exists reasonable ground to believe that
a crime has been committed and that the accused is

657

VOL. 478, DECEMBER 19, 2005 657

Denial of a Motion to Quash (Being Interlocutory) for Want of a
Probable Cause, Not Appealable: Exceptions

probably guilty therefore and thereafter to file the corresponding

information with the appropriate courts. There are, however,
wellrecognized exceptions to this rule, such as those enumerated in
Brocka v. Enrile, (infra) to wit:

(a) To afford adequate protection to the constitutional rights of

the accused;⁄
(b) When necessary for the orderly administration of justice or
to avoid oppression or multiplicity of actions;⁄
(c) When there is a prejudicial question which is sub judice;⁄
(d) When the acts of the officer are without or in excess of
authority;
(e) Where the prosecution is under an invalid law, ordinance or
regulation;
(f) When double jeopardy is already apparent;
(g) Where the court has no jurisdiction over the offense;
(h) Where it is a case of persecution rather than prosecution;
(i) Where the charges are manifestly false and motivated by
the lust for vengeance;
(j) When there is clearly no prima facie case against the
accused and a motion to quash on that ground has been
denied; and
(k) Preliminary injunction has been issued by the Supreme
Court to prevent the threatened unlawful arrest of
petitioners ⁄ (Brocka v. Enrile, G.R. Nos. 68963-65,
December 10, 1990, 192 SCRA 183).

In this instant case, the Supreme Court ruled to grant the

petition for review on certiorari.

Relevant Cases

1. In the case of Donald Mead vs. Hon. Manuel A. Argel,

No. L-41958, July 20, 1982, 115 SCRA 256, the Supreme
Court observed:
 658

658 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Denial of a Motion to Quash (Being Interlocutory) for Want
of a Probable Cause, Not Appealable: Exceptions

„x x x The petition for certiorari interposed by the accused against

the order of the court a quo, denying the motion to quash may be
entertained not only because it was rendered in a criminal case, but
because it was rendered, as claimed, with grave abuse of discretion,
as found by the Court of Appeals. It would indeed be unfair and
unjust, if not derogatory of their constitutional rights, to force the
accused to go to trial under information which, in their opinion, as
was found, accuses them of multiple offenses in contravention of
law. And so, in an opinion, the respondent court did not err in
entertaining the petition for certiorari instead of dismissing it, as
claimed. x x x‰

The Supreme Court continued:

„x x x In the case at bar, the petitioner assails the very jurisdiction

of the court wherein the criminal case was filed. Certainly, there is
a more compelling reason that such issue be resolved soonest, in
order to avoid the CourtÊs spending precious time and energy
unnecessarily in trying and deciding the case, and to spare the
accused from the inconvenience, anxiety and embarrassment, let
alone the expenditure of money and effort, in undergoing a trial for
a case the proceeding in which could be annulled for want of
jurisdiction. x x x‰

2. In the case of Salonga vs. Ernani Cruz Paño, G.R. No. L-

59524, February 18, 1985, 134 SCRA 438, the Highest
Court articulated:

„x x x There is no disputing the validity and wisdom of the rule

invoked by the respondents. However it is also recognized that,
under certain situations, recourses to the extraordinary legal
remedies of certiorari, prohibition or mandamus to question the
denial of a motion to quash is considered proper in the interest of
more enlightened and substantial justice.‰

The Supreme Court observed further:

„x x x Infinitely more important than conventional adherence to

general rules of criminal procedure is respect for the citizenÊs right
to be free not only from arbitrary arrest and punishment but also
from unwarranted and vexatious prosecution. The integrity of a

659

VOL. 478, DECEMBER 19, 2005 659

Denial of a Motion to Quash (Being Interlocutory) for Want of a
Probable Cause, Not Appealable: Exceptions

democratic society is corrupted if a person is carelessly included in

the trial of around forty persons when on the very face of the record
no evidence linking him to the alleged conspiracy exists. x x x‰

3. Cabahug vs. People, et al., G.R. No. 132816, February 5,

2002, 376 SCRA 113 reiterates the views that the
determination of whether or not there is reasonable ground
to believe that the accused is guilty of the offense charged
and, therefore, whether or not he should be subjected to the
expense, rigors and embarrassment of trial, is the function
of the prosecution. However, the courts may interfere with
the investigating powers of the Ombudsman as listed in the
case of Brocka vs. Enrile, supra.
The Highest Tribunal decreed:

„x x x While it is the function of the Ombudsman to determine

whether or not the petitioner should be subjected to the expense,
rigors and embarrassment of the trial, he cannot do so arbitrarily.
This seemingly exclusive and unilateral authority by the Court
when powers of prosecution are in danger of being used for
persecution. Dismissing the case against the accused for palpable
want of probable cause not only spares her the expense, rigors and
embarrassment of trial, but also prevents needless waste of the
courtÊs, time and saves the precious resources of the government.

4. Fernando vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 96182, August

19, 1992 and Mison vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 96183,
August 19, 1992, 212 SCRA 680, stress the view that the
Court has a policy of non-interference in the OmbudsmanÊs
exercise of his constitutionally mandated powers. The
overwhelming number of petitions questioning the filing by
the Ombudsman of charges against them are invariably
denied due course. Occasionally, however, there are rare
cases when, for various reasons, there has been a
misapprehension of facts, we step in with our review power.
This is one such case. x x x
5. Venus vs. Desierto, G.R. No. 130319, October 21, 1998,
298 SCRA 196, emphasizes the ruling in Fernando vs.
Sandi-

660

660 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Denial of a Motion to Quash (Being Interlocutory) for Want
of a Probable Cause, Not Appealable: Exceptions

ganbayan, supra, Brocka vs. Enrile, supra, Yap vs. Lutero,

supra, that:

„This court does not ordinarily interfere with the discretion of the
Ombudsman to determine whether there exists reasonable ground
to believe that a crime has been committed and that the accused is
probably guilty thereof and, thereafter file the corresponding
information with the appropriate courts. x x x‰

The exceptions cited in the above-mentioned cases were

likewise repeatedly stressed.
6. In Guiyab vs. People, G.R. No. 152527, October 20,
2005, 470 SCRA 533, the Supreme Court mandated:

„x x x As a rule, appellate courts will not interfere with the

judgment of the trial court in passing upon the credibility of a
witness, unless there appears in the record some fact or
circumstance of weight and influence which has been overhauled, or
the significance of which has been misinterpreted or
misapprehended. That general rule holds true in this case. x x x‰

7. Osorio vs. Disierto, G.R. No. 156652, October 13, 2005,

472 SCRA 559, highlights the view that the Court cannot
interfere with the Office of the OmbudsmanÊs discretion in
determining the adequacy or inadequacy of the evidence
before it. The investigation is advisedly called preliminary,
as it is yet to be followed by the trial proper. The occasion is
not for the full and exhaustive display of such evidence
only as may engender a well-founded belief that an offense
has been committed and that the accused is probably guilty
of the offense. Hence, in the adherence of a clear case of
abuse of discretion, this Court will not interfere with the
Office of the OmbudsmanÊs discretion in the conduct of
preliminary investigation.
8. In the case of Sasot vs. People, G.R. No. 143193, June
29, 2005, 462 SCRA 138, the Supreme Court decreed:

„x x x The Court has consistently held that a special civil action for
 certiorari is not the proper remedy to assail the denial of a motion
to quash an information. The proper procedure in such a case

661

VOL. 478, DECEMBER 19, 2005 661

Denial of a Motion to Quash (Being Interlocutory) for Want of a
Probable Cause, Not Appealable: Exceptions

is for the accused to enter a plea, go to trial without prejudice on his

part to present the special defenses he had invoked in his motion to
quash and, if after trial on the merits, an adverse decision is
rendered, to appeal therefrom in the manner authorized by law.
Thus, petitioner should not have filed a special civil action for
certiorari or prohibition, but to continue with the case in due course
and, when an unfavorable verdict is handed down, to take an
appeal in the manner authorized by law. Only when the court
issued such order without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave
abuse of discretion and when the assailed interlocutory order is
patently erroneous and the remedy of appeal would not afford
adequate and expeditious relief will certiorari be considered an
appropriate remedy to assail an interlocutory order. No such special
circumstances are present in the case at bar. x x x‰

··o0o··

662

© Copyright 2016 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.