RULE 117 - MOTION TO QUASH

 
Section 1. Time to move to quash. – At any time before entering his plea, the accused may move
to quash the complaint or information.
 

WHEN CAN THE ACCUSED FILE A MOTION TO

QUASH?
>     At  any  time  before  entering  the  plea,  the  accused  may  move  to quash the complaint or
information
 

AN INFORMATION WAS FILED AGAINST X.  X FILED

A MOTION TO QUASH AS  THE FACTS IN  THE
INFORMATION DIDN’T CONSTITUTE AN OFFENSE. 
THIS WAS FILED TOGETHER WITH AN
APPLICATION FOR BAIL.  IS THIS VALID?
>     Yes.  There is no inconsistency that exists between an application of an accused for bail and
his filing of a motion to quash.
 
Sec.  2.  Form  and  contents.  –  The  motion  to  quash  shall  be  in writing,  signed  by  the 
accused  or  his  counsel  and  shall  distinctly specify  its  factual  and  legal  grounds.  The 
court  shall  consider  no
ground  other  than  those  stated  in  the  motion,  except  lack  of jurisdiction over the offense
charged.
 

WHAT IS THE FORM REQUIRED FOR A MOTION TO

QUASH?
1.    It must be in writing
2.    It must be signed by the accused or his counsel
3.    It must specify its factual and legal grounds
 
Sec.  3. Grounds. – The accused may move to quash the complaint or information on any of
the following grounds:
 
(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 officer  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  charged,  or 
the  case  against  him  was  dismissed  or otherwise terminated without his express consent.

WHAT  ARE  THE  GROUNDS  THAT  THE  ACCUSED 

MAY  INVOKE  TO QUASH A COMPLAINT OR
INFORMATION? 
1.    That the facts charged don’t constitute an offense
2.    That  the  court  trying  the  case  doesn’t  have  jurisdiction  over  the offense
3.    That  the  court  trying  the  case  doesn’t  have  jurisdiction  over  the accused
4.    That the officer who filed the information didn’t have authority to do so
5.    That it doesn’t conform substantially to the form subscribed
6.    That  more  than  one  offense  is  charged  except  when  a  single punishment for various
offenses is prescribed by law
7.    That criminal liability or action has been extinguished
8.    That it contains averments which, if true, would constitute a legal excuse or justification
9.    That  the  accused  has  been  previously  convicted  or  acquitted  of the offense charged, or
the case against him has been dismissed or otherwise terminated without the consent of the
accused
 
CAN THE COURT DISMISS THE CASE BASED ON
GROUNDS THAT ARE NOT ALLEGED IN THE
MOTION TO QUASH?
>     The general rule is no, the court cannot consider any ground other than those stated in the
motion to quash.
>     The exception is the lack of jurisdiction over the offense charged.  If this is the ground for
dismissing the case, it need not be alleged in the motion to quash since it goes into the very
competence of the court to pass upon the case.
 

X FILED A MOTION TO QUASH AN INFORMATION

ON THE GROUND THAT  HE  WAS  IN  THE  US 
WHEN  THE  CRIME  CHARGED  WAS COMMITTED. 
SHOULD THE MOTION BE GRANTED?
>     The motion should be denied
>     The accused is already making a defense
>     Matters  of  defense  are  generally  not  a  ground  for  a  motion  to quash they should be
presented at the trial
 

WHAT  IS  MEANT  BY  THE  STATEMENT  THAT  A 

MOTION  TO  QUASH HYPOTHETICALLY    ADMITS   
ALLEGATIONS    OF    FACT    IN    THE
INFORMATION?
>     It  means  that  the  accused  argues  that  assuming  that  the  facts charged are true, the
information should still be dismissed based on the ground invoked by the defendant.  
>     Therefore,  since  the  defendant  assumes  that  the  facts  in  the information are true, only
these facts should be taken into account and the court resolves the motion to quash.  Other facts,
such as matters of defenses, which are not in the information should not be considered
>     The exceptions to the rule are when the grounds invoked to quash the  information  are 
extinction  of  criminal  liability,  prescription, and former jeopardy.  In these cases, additional
facts are ed.
 

CAN THE ACCUSED MOVE TO QUASH ON THE

GROUND THAT HE IS DENIED DUE PROCESS?
>     No, denial of due process is not one of the grounds for a motion to quash
 

WHAT IS THE TEST TO DETERMINE THE VALIDITY

OF A MOTION TO QUASH  ON  THE  GROUND  THAT 
THE  FACTS  AVERRED  IN  THE INFORMATION
DON’T AMOUNT TO AN OFFENSE?
>     The test is whether the facts alleged would establish the essential elements of the crime as
defined by law, and in this examination, matters aliunde are not considered
 

X  FILED  A  MOTION  TO  QUASH  ON  THE 

FOLLOWING  GROUNDS: THAT  THE  COURT 
LACKED  JURISDICTION  OVER  THE  PERSON  OF
THE  ACCUSED  AND  THAT  THE  COMPLAINT 
CHARGED  MORE  THAN ONE  OFFENSE.    CAN  THE 
COURT  GRANT  THE  MOTION  ON  THE GROUND
OF LACK OF JURISDICTION?
>     In the past, the answer would have been no since the SC ruled in several cases then that the
motion to quash on the ground of lack of jurisdiction over the person of the accused must be
based only
on  this  ground.    If  other  grounds  are  included,  there  is  waiver, and  the  accused  is 
deemed  to  have  submitted  himself  to  the jurisdiction of the court.
>     The new rule, based on the decisions of the SC on Section 20 of Rule 14 of the 1997 Rules
of Civil Procedure, the inclusion of other grounds  aside  from  lack  of  jurisdiction  over  the 
person  of  the
defendant  in  a  motion  to  dismiss  shall  not  be  considered  as  a voluntary appearance.
 

WHAT IS THE EFFECT OF AN INFORMATION THAT

WAS SIGNED BY AN UNAUTHORIZED PERSON?
>     A valid information must be signed by a competent officer, which, among other requisites,
confers jurisdiction over the person of the accused and the subject matter of the accusation
>     Thus, an infirmity in the information such as the lack of authority of the officer signing it
cannot be cured by silence, acquiescence, express consent, or even amendment.   
   It  is  an  invalid  information  and  cannot  be  the  basis  of  criminal proceedings.  
>     A motion to quash would prosper
 

WHAT  HAPPENS  IF  THE  DEFENDANT  ENTERS 

HIS  PLEA  BEFORE FILING A MOTION TO QUASH?
>     By  entering  his  plea  before  filing  the  motion  to  quash,  the defendant  waives  the 
formal  objectives  to  the  complaint  or information
>     But  if  the  ground  for  the  motion  is  any  of  the  following  below, there is no waiver. 
The following grounds  may be raised  at any stage of the proceeding:
1.    Failure to charge an offense
2.    Lack of jurisdiction over the offense
3.    Extinction of criminal liability
4.    Double jeopardy
>     Note: if it is a formal objection, it is deemed waived upon plea 

Sustaining and Denial of the Motion to

Quash
Sec. 5. Effect of sustaining the motion to quash. – If the motion to quash is sustained, the court
may order that another complaint or information be filed except as provided in section 6 of this
rule. If the  order  is  made,  the  accused,  if  in  custody,  shall  not  be discharged unless
admitted to bail. If no order is made or if having been made, no new information is filed within
the time specified in the  order  or  within  such  further  time  as  the  court  may    for good
cause, the accused, if  in custody, shall  be discharged unless he is also in custody of another
charge.

Sec.  6. Order sustaining the motion to quash not a bar to another prosecution; exception. – An
order sustaining the motion to quash is not a bar to another prosecution for the same offense
unless the motion was based on the grounds specified in section 3 (g) and (i) of this Rule.

WHAT IS THE EFFECT IF A MOTION TO QUASH IS

SUSTAINED?
>     The court may order that another complaint or information be filed against the accused for
the same offense except if the ground for sustaining the motion to quash is either the
extinguishment of the
criminal liability or double jeopardy.
>     The  grant  of  motion  to  quash  on  these  2  grounds  is  a  bar  to another prosecution for
the same offense.  If the order is  made, the accused, if in custody, shall not be discharged unless
admitted
to  bail.    If  no  order  is  made,  or  if  no  new  information  was  filed within  the  time 
specified  by  the  court,  the  accused,  shall  be discharged

IF THE MOTION TO QUASH IS DENIED, CAN THE

ACCUSED APPEAL THE ORDER?
>     The  accused  cannot  appeal  an  order  overruling  his  motion  to quash   because   an  
order   denying   a   motion   to   quash   is interlocutory
>     It doesn’t dispose of the case upon its merits

WHAT DOES INTERLOCUTORY MEAN?

>     Case has not been dispensed with , an internal order.

WHAT IS THE REMEDY OF THE ACCUSED IF THE

COURT DENIED HIS MOTION TO QUASH?
1.    Accused should plead
2.    Proceed to trial without prejudice to present the special defenses he invoked in his motion
3.    If after trial on the merits an adverse decision is rendered, he can appeal from the judgment
of conviction, and interpose the denial of the motion as an error

RULE 117 - MOTION TO QUASH

 
    Section 1. Time to move to quash. – At
any time before entering his plea, the
accused may move to quash the complaint or
information.
 
    Sec. 2. Form and contents. – The motion
to quash shall be in writing, signed by the
accused or his counsel and shall distinctly
specify its factual and legal grounds. The
court shall consider no ground other than
those stated in the motion, except lack of
jurisdiction over the offense charged.
 
    Sec. 3. Grounds. – The accused may move
to quash the complaint or information on
any of the following grounds:
(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 officer 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 charged, or the case
against him was dismissed or
otherwise terminated without his
express consent.
    Sec. 4. Amendment of complaint or
information. – If the motion to quash is
based on an alleged defect of the complaint
or information which can be cured by
amendment, the court shall order that an
amendment be made.
    If it is based on the ground that the
facts charged do not constitute an offense,
the prosecution shall be given by the court
an opportunity to correct the defect by
amendment. The motion shall be granted if
the prosecution fails to make the
amendment, or the complaint or information
still suffers from the same defect despite
the amendment.
 
    Sec. 5. Effect of sustaining the motion
to quash. – If the motion to quash is
sustained, the court may order that another
complaint or information be filed except as
provided in section 6 of this rule. If the
order is made, the accused, if in custody,
shall not be discharged unless admitted to
bail. If no order is made or if having been
made, no new information is filed within
the time specified in the order or within
such further time as the court may allow
for good cause, the accused, if in custody,
shall be discharged unless he is also in
custody of another charge.
 
    Sec. 6. Order sustaining the motion to
quash not a bar to another prosecution;
exception. – An order sustaining the motion
to quash is not a bar to another
prosecution for the same offense unless the
motion was based on the grounds specified
in section 3 (g) and (i) of this Rule.
 
    Sec. 7. Former conviction or acquittal;
double jeopardy. – When an accused has been
convicted or acquitted, or the case against
him dismissed or otherwise terminated
without his express consent by a court of
competent jurisdiction, upon a valid
complaint or information or other formal
charge sufficient in form and substance to
sustain a conviction and after the accused
had pleaded to the charge, the conviction
or acquittal of the accused or the
dismissal of the case shall be a bar to
another prosecution for the offense
charged, or for any attempt to commit the
same or frustration thereof, or for any
offense which necessarily includes or is
necessarily included in the offense charged
in the former complaint or information.
    However, the conviction of the accused
shall not be a bar to another prosecution
for an offense which necessarily includes
the offense charged in the former complaint
or information under any of the following
instances:
(a) the graver offense developed due
to supervening facts arising from
the same act or omission
constituting the former charge;
(b) the facts constituting the
graver charge became known or were
discovered only after a plea was
entered in the former complaint or
information; or
(c) the plea of guilty to the lesser
offense was made without the consent
of the prosecutor and of the
offended party except as provided in
section 1(f) of Rule 116.
    In any of the foregoing cases, where
the accused satisfies or serves in whole or
in part the judgment, he shall be credited
with the same in the event of conviction
for the graver offense.
    Sec. 8. Provisional dismissal. – A case
shall not be provisionally dismissed except
with the express consent of the accused and
with notice to the offended party.
    The provisional dismissal of offenses
punishable by imprisonment not exceeding
six (6) years or a fine of any amount, or
both, shall become permanent one (1) year
after issuance of the order without the
case having been revived. With respect to
offenses punishable by imprisonment of more
than six (6) years, their provisional
dismissal shall become permanent two (2)
years after issuance of the order without
the case having been revived.
 
Sec. 9. Failure to move to quash or to
allege any ground therefore. – The failure
of the accused to assert any ground of a
motion to quash before he pleads to the
complaint or information, either because he
did not file a motion to quash or failed to
allege the same in said motion, shall be
deemed a waiver of any objections except
those based on the grounds provided for in
paragraphs (a), (b), (g), and (i) of
section 3 of this Rule.
 RULE 118 - PRE-TRIAL
 
    Section 1. Pre-trial; mandatory in
criminal cases. – In all criminal cases
cognizable by the Sandiganbayan, Regional
Trial Court, Metropolitan Trial Court,
Municipal Trial Court in Cities, Municipal
Trial Court and Municipal Circuit Trial
Court, the court shall, after arraignment
and within thirty (30) days from the date
the court acquires jurisdiction over the
person of the accused, unless a shorter
period is provided for in special laws or
circulars of the Supreme Court, order a
pre-trial conference to consider the
following:
(a) plea bargaining;
(b) stipulation of facts;
(c) marking for identification of
evidence of the parties;
(d) waiver of objections to
admissibility of evidence;
(e) modification of the order of
trial if the accused admits the
charge but interposes a lawful
defense; and
 (f) such matters as will promote a
fair and expeditious trial of the
criminal and civil aspects of the
case.
    Sec. 2. Pre-trial agreement. – All
agreements or admissions made or entered
during the pre-trial conference shall be
reduced in writing and signed by the
accused and counsel, otherwise, they cannot
be used against the accused. The agreements
covering the matters referred to in section
1 of this Rule shall be approved by the
court.
    Sec. 3. Non-appearance at pre-trial
conference. – If the counsel for the
accused or the prosecutor does not appear
at the pre-trial conference and does not
offer an acceptable excuse for his lack of
cooperation, the court may impose proper
sanctions or penalties.
    Sec. 4. Pre-trial order. – After the
pre-trial conference, the court shall issue
an order reciting the actions taken, the
facts stipulated, and evidence marked. Such
order shall bind the parties, limit the
trial to matters not disposed of, and
control the course f the action during the
trial, unless modified by the court to
prevent manifest injustice.
← Remedies; Void Judgment (2004)
Trial; Trial in Absentia; Automatic Review of Conviction (1998) →

Search Warrant; Motion to Quash (2005)

Posted on September 12, 2010 by Salin Lahi

Police operatives of the Western Police District, Philippine National Police, applied for a search
warrant in the RTC for the search of the house of Juan Santos and the seizure of an undetermined
amount of shabu. The team arrived at the house of Santos but failed to find him there. Instead,
the team found Roberto Co. The team conducted a search in the house of Santos in the presence
of Roberto Co and barangay officials and found ten (10) grams of shabu. Roberto Co was
charged in court with illegal possession of ten grams of shabu. Before his arraignment, Roberto
Co filed a motion to quash the warrant on the following grounds (a) it was not the accused
named in the search warrant; and (b) the warrant does not describe the article to be seized with
sufficient particularity. Resolve the motion with reasons. (4%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

The motion to quash should be denied. The name of the person in the search warrant is not
important. It is not even necessary that a particular person be implicated (Mantaring v. Roman,
A.M. No. RTJ-93-904, February 28, 1996), so long as the search is conducted in the place where
the search warrant will be served. Moreover, describing the shabu in an undetermined amount is
sufficiently particular. (People v. Tee, G.R. Nos. 140546-47, January 20, 2003)

Information; Motion to Quash; Grounds

(1998)
Posted on September 12, 2010 by Salin Lahi

1 Give two (2) grounds to quash an Information.[2%]

2 If the Information is not accompanied by a certification that a preliminary investigation has

been conducted. Is the Information void? [3%]

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

1.     Two grounds to quash an Information are: a) That the facts charged do not constitute an
offense; and

b)     That the court trying the case has no jurisdiction over the offense charged or the person of
the accused.
c) That the officer who filed the information had no authority to do so;

d) That it does not conform substantially to the prescribed form;

e)     That more than one offense is charged except in those cases in which existing laws
prescribe a single punishment for various offenses;

f)     That the criminal action or liability has been extinguished;

g)     That it contains averments which, if true, would constitute a legal excuse or justification;
and

h)     That the accused has been previously convicted or in jeopardy of being convicted, or
acquitted of the offense charged. (Sec. 3, Rule 117. Rules of Criminal Procedure.)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

2. No. The certification which is provided in Sec. 4, Rule 112. Rules of Criminal Procedure, is
not an indispensable part of the information.

SPO1 CNC filed with the MTC in Quezon City (MeTC-QC) a sworn written statement duly
subscribed by him, charging RGR (an actual resident of Cebu City) with the offense of slight
physical injuries allegedly inflicted on SPS (an actual resident of Quezon City).  The Judge of
the branch to which the case was raffled thereupon issued an order declaring that the case shall
be governed by the Rule on Summary Procedure in criminal cases.  Soon thereafter, the Judge
ordered the dismissal of the case for the reason that it was not commenced by information, as
required by said Rule.
Sometime later, based on the same facts giving rise to the slight physical injuries case, the City
Prosecutor filed with the same MeTC-QC an information for attempted homicide against the
same RGR. In due time, before arraignment, RGR moved to quash the information on the ground
of double jeopardy and after due hearing, the Judge granted his motion. Was the dismissal of the
complaint for slight physical injuries proper? Was the grant of the motion to quash the attempted
homicide information correct? Reason.

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes, the dismissal of the complaint for slight physical injuries is proper because in Metropolitan
Manila and in chartered cities, the case has to be commenced only by information. (Sec. 11,
Revised Rule on Summary Procedure).

No, the grant of the motion to quash the attempted homicide information on the ground of double
jeopardy was not correct, because there was no valid prosecution for slight physical injuries

What is a motion to quash?

Quash is "to make void" A motion to quash is often used for suppressing service of a
summons/complaint or warrant or other legal proceedings (discovery of evidence) due to such
things as lack of jurisdiction, wrong identification .
 Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila

FIRST DIVISION

G.R. No. 150606             June 7, 2007

STATE PROSECUTOR AND SPECIAL PROSECUTOR ON SSS CASES IN REGION V,

ROMULO SJ. TOLENTINO, AND REGIONAL STATE PROSECUTOR SANTIAGO M.
TURINGAN, as alter ego of the Secretary of Justice in Region V, in their official capacities,
and, for and in representation of the PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES and MARITES C.
DE LA TORRE, in her official capacity as counsel for the Complainant, SOCIAL
SECURITY SYSTEM (SSS) Bicol Cluster, petitioners,
vs.
HON. PABLO M. PAQUEO, JR., in his capacity as Presiding Judge of RTC, Branch 23, of
the City of Naga, and Accused BENEDICT DY TECKLO, respondents.

DESICION

AZCUNA, J.:

This is a petition for certiorari and mandamus alleging that respondent Judge Pablo M. Paqueo,
Jr., Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Naga City, Branch 23, acted with grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in issuing the Orders dated August 24, 2001 and
October 15, 2001. The Order dated August 24, 2001 granted the Motion to Quash of private
respondent Benedict Dy Tecklo, thus dismissing the Information filed by petitioner State
Prosecutor Romulo SJ. Tolentino. The Order dated October 15, 2001 denied State Prosecutor
Tolentino’s Objection and Motion dated September 5, 2001.

The facts are:

On June 22, 2001, petitioner State Prosecutor Romulo SJ. Tolentino filed an Information
charging private respondent Benedict Dy Tecklo, the owner/proprietor of Qualistronic Builders,
of violation of Sec. 22 (a) in relation to Sec. 28 (e) of Republic Act No. 82821 for failing to remit
the premiums due for his employee to the Social Security System despite demand.

The Information contains a certification by State Prosecutor Tolentino, thus:

CERTIFICATION

I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THE REQUIRED INVESTIGATION IN THIS CASE

HAS BEEN CONDUCTED BY THE UNDERSIGNED SPECIAL PROSECUTOR IN
ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AND UNDER OATH AS OFFICER OF THE COURT,
THAT THERE IS REASONABLE GROUND TO BELIEVE THAT THE OFFENSE
HAS BEEN COMMITTED, THAT THE ACCUSED IS PROBABLY GUILTY
 THEREOF AND THAT THE FILING OF THE INFORMATION IS WITH THE
PRIOR AUTHORITY AND APPROVAL OF THE REGIONAL STATE
PROSECUTOR.2

The case was raffled to the RTC of Naga City, Branch 23, presided by respondent Judge Pablo
M. Paqueo, Jr. It was set for arraignment on August 7, 2001. On said date, counsel for private
respondent moved for the deferment of the arraignment and requested time to file a motion to
quash the Information, which request was granted by the court.

On August 10, 2001, private respondent filed a Motion to Quash, thus:

Accused, through counsel, most respectfully moves to quash the Information x x x upon
the sole ground that State Prosecutor Romulo SJ Tolentino, not being the City Prosecutor
nor the Provincial Prosecutor, has no legal personality nor is he legally clothed with the
authority to commence prosecution by the filing of the Information and thus prosecute
the case.3

On August 16, 2001, State Prosecutor Tolentino filed an Opposition to Motion to Quash4 on the
following grounds:

(1) He (State Prosecutor Tolentino) is authorized to investigate, file the necessary

Information and prosecute SSS cases since he was designated as Special Prosecutor for
SSS cases by Regional State Prosecutor Santiago M. Turingan by virtue of Regional
Order No. 97-024A dated July 14, 1997;

(2) In a letter5 dated October 24, 2000, Chief State Prosecutor Jovencito Zuño confirmed
such authority and that Informations to be filed in court by prosecutors-designate do not
need the approval of the Regional State Prosecutor or Provincial or City Prosecutor;

(3) Under the Administrative Code of 1987, the Regional State Prosecutor, as alter ego of
the Secretary of Justice, is vested with authority to designate Special Prosecutors; and

(4) The City Prosecutor has been inhibited by the private complainant from investigating
SSS Cases as it is the Panel of Prosecutors that is now acting as City Prosecutor over all
city cases involving violations of the Social Security Act. As acting Prosecutor, the panel
outranks the City Prosecutor.

On August 24, 2001, the RTC issued an Order quashing the Information and dismissing the case,
thus:

For resolution is a motion to quash filed by x x x counsel for the accused, with an
opposition to the same filed by State Prosecutor Romulo SJ. Tolentino, the prosecutor
who filed the information.
The motion is based on the lack of legal personality of State Prosecutor Tolentino, [not
being] legally clothed with the authority to commence prosecution by the filing of the
information and, thus, prosecute the case.

One of the grounds provided by the rules to quash an Information is paragraph (c), of
Sec. 3 of Rule 117.

"(c) that the officer who filed the information had no authority to do so."

A glance on the face of the information would glaringly show that it was filed by State
Prosecutor Romulo Tolentino, without the approval of the City Prosecutor of Naga City,
the situs of the crime, a blatant violation of the third paragraph of Sec. 4 of Rule 112 of
the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure.

An information filed by a qualified and authorized officer is required for the jurisdiction
of the court over the case (Villa v. Ibañez, et al., 88 Phil. 402).

A justification put up by State Prosecutor Tolentino is a Regional Order No. 07-024-A

subject of which is the Designation of Personnel issued by the Regional State Prosecutor
which in effect designated him as the special prosecutor to handle the investigation of all
SSS cases filed before the Offices of the City Prosecutor of the Cities of Naga, Iriga and
Legaspi and the Offices of the Provincial Prosecutor of the different provinces in the
Bicol Region, except the provinces of Catanduanes and Masbate, and if evidence
warrants to file the necessary information and prosecute the same in the court of
[appropriate] jurisdiction.

The designation of State Prosecutor Tolentino to investigate, file this information if the
evidence warrants, and to prosecute SSS cases in court does not exempt him from
complying with the provision of the third paragraph of [Sec. 4 of] Rule 112 of the
Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure, that no complaint or information may be filed or
dismissed by an investigating prosecutor without the prior written authority or approval
of the Provincial or City Prosecutor or Chief State Prosecutor or the Ombudsman or his
deputy. The designation given to Prosecutor Tolentino came from the Regional Chief
State Prosecutor [who] is not one of those mentioned exclusively by the Rules to approve
in writing the filing or the dismissal of an information.

Also, as ruled by this court in a similar case which was dismissed, the second attached
document supporting the opposition to the motion, is but an opinion of the Chief State
prosecutor which has no force and effect to set aside the mandatory requirement of the
Rules in the filing of an information in court.

WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing, the motion is granted, The information is
hereby ordered quashed and dismissed.6
Petitioner State Prosecutor Tolentino filed an Objection and Motion praying that the Order dated
August 24, 2001 be set aside and that the case entitled People v. Tecklo be scheduled for
arraignment without unnecessary delay.

In an Order dated October 15, 2001, respondent Judge denied Tolentino’s Objection and Motion,
thus:

For consideration is an Objection and Motion filed by State Prosecutor Romulo SJ.
Tolentino, praying that the Order of this court dated August 24, 2001 be set aside and the
case be scheduled for arraignment.

Acting on said motion upon receipt thereof, the court gave the defense a period of fifteen
(15) days from receipt of the order dated September 18, 2001 to file its comment and/or
opposition; however, the period lapsed with the court never receiving any comment
and/or opposition from the defense.

The records show that the issue raised in the pleadings from both parties is whether
Prosecutor Tolentino, in filing the information, can just ignore the provision of the third
paragraph of Sec. 4 of Rule 112 of the Revised Rules on [C]riminal [P]rocedure.

It is the stand of this court, when it ruled and so holds that Prosecutor Tolentino may
conduct exclusive investigation and prosecute all violations of the provisions of the SSS
Laws within the Bicol Region, but in the filing of the information in court, he must
comply with [x x x] the above-cited provision of the rules on criminal procedure, that is,
to have the provincial or city prosecutor at the situs of the offense approve in writing said
information. It was further ruled by this court that failure to secure said written authority
of the provincial or city prosecutor would touch on the jurisdiction of this court.

With the foregoing, this court cannot find any legal basis to disturb its ruling of August
24, 2001. The instant objection and motion is therefore denied.

SO ORDERED.7

Petitioners, thereafter, filed this petition praying for the nullification of the Orders dated August
24, 2001 and October 15, 2001.

The main issue in this case is whether or not petitioner State Prosecutor Tolentino is duly
authorized to file the subject Information without the approval of the City Prosecutor?

In their Memorandum,8 petitioners allege that State Prosecutor Tolentino was duly authorized to
file the Information based on the following:

1. Petitioner Regional State Prosecutor Santiago M. Turingan, per Regional Order dated
July 14, 1997, authorized State Prosecutor Tolentino to file the necessary Information for
violations of Republic Act No. 8282 in the Bicol Region, except Masbate and
Catanduanes, and to prosecute the same in courts of competent jurisdiction. This was in
 response to the request of the SSS, Region V for the designation of a Special Prosecutor
to handle the prosecution of said criminal cases with the Office of the City Prosecutor
and Office of the Provincial Prosecutor of the cities of Naga, Legaspi and Iriga and all
provinces of the Bicol Region.

2. Per ruling of the Chief State Prosecutor in his letter dated October 24, 2000, ". . . the
information to be filed in court by prosecutors-designate do not need the approval of the
Regional State Prosecutor or the Provincial or City Prosecutor." An administrative
opinion interpreting existing rules issued by agencies directly involved in the
implementation of the rules should be respected and upheld.

Respondent judge quashed the Information based on Sec. 3 (d), Rule 117 of the Revised Rules of
Criminal Procedure in relation to the third paragraph of Sec. 4, Rule 112 of the Revised Rules of
Criminal Procedure, thus:

Rule 112. Sec 4. Resolution of investigating prosecutor and its review.— x x x

No complaint or information may be filed or dismissed by an investigating prosecutor

without the prior written authority or approval of the provincial or city prosecutor
or chief state prosecutor or the Ombudsman or his deputy.9

Rule 117. Sec. 3. Grounds.— The accused may move to quash the complaint or
information on any of the following grounds:

xxx

(d) That the officer who filed the information had no authority to do so.

Notably, changes in the third paragraph of Sec. 4, Rule 112 were introduced in the Revised Rules
of Criminal Procedure, which took effect on December 1, 2000. It is noted that the letter dated
October 24, 2000 of Chief State Prosecutor Jovencito R. Zuño, upon which State Prosecutor
Tolentino relies to support his authority to file the subject Information without the approval of
the City Prosecutor, was issued before the changes in the third paragraph of Sec. 4, Rule 112
were introduced in the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure.

While the old 1985 Rules of Criminal Procedure, as amended, stated that "[no] complaint or
information may be filed or dismissed by an investigating fiscal without the prior written
authority or approval of the provincial or city fiscal of chief state prosecutor," the 2000 Revised
Rules of Criminal Procedure states that "[n]o complaint or information may be filed or dismissed
by an investigating prosecutor without the prior written authority or approval of the provincial
or city prosecutor or chief state prosecutor or the Ombudsman or his deputy." Since the provision
is couched in negative terms importing that the act shall not be done otherwise than designated, it
is mandatory.10
An examination of the functions11 of the Regional State Prosecutor under Sec. 8 of Presidential
Decree No. 127512 showed that they do not include that of approving the Information filed or
dismissed by the investigating prosecutor.

It is a rule of statutory construction that the express mention of one person, thing, or consequence
implies the exclusion of all others, expressio unius est exclusio alterius.

Since the Regional State Prosecutor is not included among the law officers authorized to approve
the filing or dismissal of the Information of the investigating prosecutor, the Information filed by
petitioner State Prosecutor Tolentino did not comply with the requirement of Sec. 4, Rule 112 of
the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure. Consequently, the non-compliance was a ground to
quash the Information under Sec. 3 (d), Rule 117 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure.

Petitioners also contend that the accused must move to quash at any time before entering his plea
and the trial court is barred from granting further time to the accused to do so; and that there is
no evidence in support of the motion to quash.

Rule 117 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure on the Motion to Quash provides:

SECTION 1. Time to move to quash.—At any time before entering his plea, the accused
may move to quash the complaint or information.

SEC. 2. Form and contents.— The motion to quash shall be in writing, signed by the
accused or his counsel and shall distinctly specify its factual and legal grounds. The court
shall consider no grounds other than those stated in the motion, except lack of jurisdiction
over the offense charged.

The Court finds that there is substantial compliance by private respondent with the rule above
quoted, as it was satisfactorily explained in his Memorandum13 that his counsel orally moved to
quash the Information before the arraignment on August 7, 2001. In an Order issued on the same
date, respondent Judge required private respondent’s counsel to file a motion to quash within
five days from the issuance of the Order. Accordingly, the motion was filed on August 10, 2001.

Moreover, there was no need to submit any evidence to support the ground for quashing the
Information, since it was apparent and within judicial notice that petitioner State Prosecutor
Tolentino was not the City Prosecutor or the Provincial Prosecutor.

As regards the allegation of willful miscitation of the ground for quashing the Information, the
Court finds that respondent Judge failed to cite in his Order the correct paragraph under Rule
117 of the Rules of Court where the ground relied upon for quashing the Information is
enumerated. What is important, however, is that he correctly cited the ground for quashing the
Information.

Certiorari implies an indifferent disregard of the law, arbitrariness and caprice, an omission to
weigh pertinent considerations, a decision arrived at without rational deliberation.14
In this petition for certiorari, the Court finds that respondent judge did not gravely abuse his
discretion in dismissing the Information filed by petitioner State Prosecutor Romulo SJ.
Tolentino for failure to comply with the third paragraph of Sec. 4, Rule 112 of the Revised Rules
of Criminal Procedure.

The Rules of Court governs the pleading, practice and procedure in all courts of the Philippines.
For the orderly administration of justice, the provisions contained therein should be followed by
all litigants, but especially by the prosecution arm of the Government.

WHEREFORE, the petition for certiorari and mandamus is DISMISSED for lack of merit.

No costs.

SO ORDERED

Steps in a Trial
Pre-trial Procedures in Criminal Cases

Pre-trial procedures in criminal cases follow the general pattern of civil cases, but with important
variations.

For one thing, the process is apt to be very different depending on the severity of the crime. In
general, the more important the offense, the more elaborate the process. The most serious crimes
are felonies , crimes such as robbery, assault with a deadly weapon, and sexual assault, for which
the punishment on conviction is imprisonment at least a year, usually in a state or federal
penitentiary. Misdemeanors are less serious crimes, such as simple assault, driving while
intoxicated, and trespassing, for which punishment on conviction could be a term of
incarceration of less than a year, usually in a local jail. Traffic infractions and petty
misdemeanors include minor moving violations, parking violations and littering. They’re
usually just punished by fines.

Steps in a Trial
Pre-trial Court Appearances in a Criminal Case

It’s especially difficult to generalize about this subject, since so much depends on a particular
state’s procedures, whether it typically uses a grand jury to bring charges, etc. Here’s the
procedure used with some variations in many states in which a prosecutor files charges without a
grand jury.

Misdemeanors
The first step is an initial appearance (often referred to as an arraignment), before a judge of a
lower court or magistrate, at which
  The charge is read to the defendant, and penalties explained.
 The defendant is advised of his/her right to trial, and right to trial by jury if desired.
 The right to counsel (legal representation) is explained, and the judge or magistrate
appoints a lawyer if the defendant requests one and is found to be indigent (too poor to
afford a private lawyer).
 The defendant enters a plea. If counsel has been requested and appointed, or if the
defendant indicates that private counsel will be retained, a plea of not guilty is entered. If
the defendant enters a not guilty plea, a trial date will be set. If the defendant pleads
guilty, either a date will be set for sentencing or the magistrate or judge will impose
probation, fines or other sentences immediately. In some cases, the judge or magistrate
may allow a defendant to plead nolo contendere , or no contest. In many jurisdictions a
plea of no contest is equivalent to a guilty plea, except that the defendant does not
directly admit guilt.
 Assuming the defendant has pled not guilty, the judge or magistrate sets the amount of
bail .

Felonies
The process is quite similar here, except that there is the additional step of the preliminary
hearing as an additional safeguard warranted by the more serious nature of the charges.

Step 1

As with misdemeanors, the first step is an initial appearance or an arraignment before a judge of
a lower court or magistrate, at which

 The charge is read to the defendant, and penalties explained.

 The defendant is advised of his/her right to a preliminary hearing and the purpose of that
procedure, as well as his/her right to trial and right to trial by jury in trial court.
 The right to counsel (legal representation) is explained, and the judge or magistrate
appoints a lawyer if the defendant requests one and is found to be indigent (too poor to
afford a private lawyer).
 The defendant does NOT enter a plea. The matter is set for preliminary hearing
(hearing to establish if a crime has been committed and if there is probable cause to
believe that the defendant committed the offense(s) alleged in complaint).The judge or
magistrate sets the amount of bail.

Step 2

The second step is the preliminary hearing, at which:

 The government must demonstrate to a judge or magistrate that there is sufficient

evidence, or probable cause, to believe the suspect committed the crime with which he
or she is charged.
 Defendants usually must be present at this hearing, although they do not commonly offer
evidence in their defense. This procedure has a similar function to grand jury
proceedings, in that it is a safeguard against unfettered government action.
 If the court finds there is no probable cause, the matter is dismissed (this would be the
equivalent of a grand jury declining to press charges). If this happens, defendants are
released.
 If the court finds there is probable cause, the matter is transferred to trial court. Many
courts use the term bound over, as "the defendant is bound over to the district or circuit
court for trial."