Enrile vs. Manalastas

The remedy against the denial of a motion to quash is for the accused to enter a plea, proceed to trial, and should the decision be adverse, reiterate the issue on appeal and assign the denial as error; certiorari is not available because the denial is an interlocutory order and other adequate remedies exist in the ordinary course of law. Additionally, an information for less serious physical injuries is sufficient if it alleges that the victim was incapacitated for labor or required medical attendance for ten days or more, even if supported only by medical certificates showing probable healing periods, as the actual duration is an evidentiary matter to be proven during trial.

On January 18, 2003, a mauling incident occurred outside the house of petitioners Godofredo Enrile and Dr. Frederick Enrile in St. Francis Subdivision, Barangay Pandayan, Meycauayan, Bulacan. Claiming to be the victims, Josefina Guinto Morano, Rommel Morano, and Perla Beltran Morano filed criminal charges against the petitioners and one Alfredo Enrile for frustrated homicide (Rommel) and less serious physical injuries (Josefina and Perla).

• On January 18, 2003, a mauling incident occurred outside the petitioners' residence in St. Francis Subdivision, Barangay Pandayan, Meycauayan, Bulacan involving the petitioners and their neighbors.
• Josefina Guinto Morano, Rommel Morano, and Perla Beltran Morano filed criminal complaints against petitioners Godofredo Enrile, Dr. Frederick Enrile, and Alfredo Enrile for frustrated homicide (Rommel as victim) and less serious physical injuries (Josefina and Perla as victims).
• On August 8, 2003, the MTC of Meycauayan, Bulacan issued a joint resolution finding probable cause against petitioners for less serious physical injuries in Criminal Cases Nos. 03-276 and 03-277, and set their arraignment for September 8, 2003.
• On August 19, 2003, petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration arguing that complainants failed to present proof of medical attention lasting 10 days or longer, and that the cases for less serious physical injuries (being related to the frustrated homicide case pending with the Provincial Prosecutor) should not be governed by the Rules on Summary Procedure.
• On November 11, 2003, the MTC denied the motion for reconsideration, stating the grounds had already been discussed and that Summary Procedure prohibited motions for reconsideration.
• Petitioners subsequently filed a manifestation with motion to quash and a motion for deferment of arraignment.
• On February 11, 2004, the MTC denied the motion to quash, ruling that the cases were covered by ordinary procedure and that the grounds raised were matters of defense to be ventilated during trial on the merits.
• The MTC reiterated the arraignment schedule for March 15, 2004.
• On March 25, 2004, the MTC denied petitioners' motion for reconsideration of the denial of the motion to quash.
• Petitioners filed a special civil action for certiorari with the RTC, Branch 7, Malolos, Bulacan, assailing the MTC orders dated February 11, 2004 and March 25, 2004.
• On May 25, 2004, the RTC dismissed the petition for certiorari, holding that the issues raised were matters of defense requiring trial on the merits and that it was premature to dismiss the criminal cases.
• On July 9, 2004, the RTC denied petitioners' motion for reconsideration.
• Petitioners filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition with the CA, seeking to nullify the RTC orders of May 25, 2004 and July 9, 2004.
• On August 31, 2004, the CA dismissed the petition for certiorari and prohibition, ruling it was the wrong remedy and that the proper remedy was an appeal by notice of appeal due within 15 days from receipt of the July 9, 2004 order.
• On December 21, 2004, the CA denied petitioners' motion for reconsideration.

• The Court of Appeals erred in upholding the trial courts' denial of the motion to quash despite clear showing that both complaints, on their face, lacked one essential element of the crime of less serious physical injuries (proof of medical attendance/incapacity for 10+ days).
• The medical certificates attached to the complaints merely stated "probable" disability periods (10-12 days for Josefina, 12-15 days for Perla) which were merely speculations, not actual proof of medical attendance rendered.
• The complainants should have presented medical certificates showing the actual number of days of medication, considering they filed the complaint two months after the incident.
• The Court of Appeals erred in not ruling that the injuries sustained by the private complainants were not perpetrated by the petitioners.

• Procedural Issues:
  • Whether the Court of Appeals erred in ruling that certiorari was not the proper remedy to assail the denial of the motion to quash and the dismissal of the prior certiorari petition by the RTC.
  • Whether the remedy of appeal was available to petitioners to challenge the RTC's dismissal of their certiorari petition.
• Substantive Issues:
  • Whether the informations for less serious physical injuries sufficiently alleged all essential elements of the crime under Article 265 of the Revised Penal Code.
  • Whether the denial of the motion to quash by the MTC was correct given the alleged insufficiency of the complaints regarding the duration of medical attendance or incapacity.

• Procedural:
  • The Court held that the CA did not commit reversible error. The RTC's orders of May 25, 2004 (dismissing the certiorari petition) and July 9, 2004 (denying the MR) were final orders completely disposing of the case in the exercise of original jurisdiction, leaving nothing more to be done by the RTC.
  • The proper remedy was an appeal by notice of appeal under Section 2(a), Rule 41 of the Rules of Court, filed within 15 days from notice of the denial of the motion for reconsideration.
  • Certiorari and prohibition were not available because they are extraordinary reliefs to address jurisdictional errors, and the petitioners failed to show that the RTC gravely abused its discretion in finding that the MTC did not gravely abuse its discretion.
  • The denial of a motion to quash is an interlocutory order not subject to certiorari because there exists a plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law: the accused must enter a plea, go to trial, and should the decision be adverse, reiterate the issue on appeal and assign as error the denial of the motion to quash.
• Substantive:
  • The Court affirmed that the informations sufficiently alleged the elements of less serious physical injuries under Article 265 of the Revised Penal Code.
  • The elements of the crime are: (1) the offender inflicted physical injuries upon another; and (2) the injuries either incapacitated the victim for labor for 10 days or more, or required medical assistance for the same period.
  • The complaints specifically alleged that petitioners attacked the victims and inflicted injuries requiring 10-12 days (for Josefina) and 12-15 days (for Perla) of medical attendance/incapacity.
  • The sufficiency of the complaint is determined by whether the facts alleged, if hypothetically admitted, constitute the elements of the offense (Section 6, Rule 110).
  • The actual duration of incapacity or medical attendance is an evidentiary matter to be proven during trial, not during preliminary investigation or via a motion to quash. The preliminary investigation is merely inquisitorial to determine probable cause, not to remove all reasonable doubt.
  • The grounds raised in the motion to quash (failure to prove actual healing period) are matters of defense that can only be threshed out in a full-blown trial on the merits.

• Remedy Against Denial of Motion to Quash — The proper remedy against the denial of a motion to quash is for the accused to enter a plea, proceed to trial, and should the decision be adverse, reiterate the issue on appeal and assign as error the denial of the motion to quash. The denial is an interlocutory order not appealable and not subject to certiorari because of the availability of other remedies in the ordinary course of law.
• Sufficiency of Information — A complaint or information is sufficient if it states the name of the accused, the designation of the offense, the acts or omissions constituting the offense, the name of the offended party, the approximate date, and the place of commission. The test is whether the facts alleged, if hypothetically admitted, constitute the elements of the offense charged.
• Nature of Preliminary Investigation — Preliminary investigation is merely inquisitorial and is often the only means of discovering whether a person may be reasonably charged with a crime. It is not a trial on the merits and does not require proof beyond reasonable doubt, only sufficient evidence to establish probable cause.
• Grounds for Motion to Quash — A motion to quash challenges the complaint or information for insufficiency on its face in point of law or for defects apparent on its face before the accused enters a plea. Matters of defense requiring evidence (such as the actual duration of medical treatment) cannot be raised in a motion to quash.

• "The remedy against the denial of a motion to quash is for the movant accused to enter a plea, go to trial, and should the decision be adverse, reiterate on appeal from the final judgment and assign as error the denial of the motion to quash. The denial, being an interlocutory order, is not appealable, and may not be the subject of a petition for certiorari because of the availability of other remedies in the ordinary course of law."
• "The motion to quash is the mode by which an accused, before entering his plea, challenges the complaint or information for insufficiency on its face in point of law, or for defects apparent on its face."
• "The fundamental test in determining the sufficiency of the averments in a complaint or information is, therefore, whether the facts alleged therein, if hypothetically admitted, constitute the elements of the offense."
• "According to Cinco v. Sandiganbayan, the preliminary investigation, which is the occasion for the submission of the parties' respective affidavits, counter-affidavits and evidence to buttress their separate allegations, is merely inquisitorial, and is often the only means of discovering whether a person may be reasonably charged with a crime, to enable the prosecutor to prepare the information."

• Serapio v. Sandiganbayan — Cited for the definition that a motion to quash is the mode by which an accused challenges the complaint or information for insufficiency on its face or defects apparent on its face before entering a plea.
• Cinco v. Sandiganbayan — Cited for the principle that preliminary investigation is merely inquisitorial and is only a means of discovering whether a person may be reasonably charged with a crime to enable the prosecutor to prepare the information.
• People v. Balao and Cabrera v. Sandiganbayan — Cited for the fundamental test in determining sufficiency of averments in a complaint or information (whether facts alleged constitute elements of the offense).
• Tandoc v. Resultas — Cited for the purpose of preliminary investigation being to determine whether a crime has been committed and whether there is probable cause to believe the accused is guilty.
• Trocio v. Manta — Cited for the standard that preliminary investigation requires only sufficient evidence to establish probable cause, not to remove all reasonable doubt.
• Lalican v. Vergara, Socrates v. Sandiganbayan, and Cruz, Jr. v. Court of Appeals — Cited for the rule that the remedy against denial of motion to quash is to proceed to trial and assign the denial as error on appeal.
• Investments, Inc. v. Court of Appeals — Cited for the definition of a final judgment or order as one that completely disposes of a case, leaving nothing more to be done by the court.

• Article 265, Revised Penal Code (Less Serious Physical Injuries) — Defines the crime and its elements (incapacity for labor or medical attendance for 10 days or more).
• Rule 110, Section 6, Rules of Court (Sufficiency of Complaint or Information) — States the requirements for a sufficient complaint or information and establishes the test for sufficiency.
• Rule 117, Section 3, Rules of Court (Grounds for Motion to Quash) — Enumerates the grounds upon which an accused may file a motion to quash before entering a plea.
• Rule 41, Sections 1, 2(a), and 3, Rules of Court — Governs appeals from final orders and judgments, including the requirement of notice of appeal and the 15-day period.
• Rule 65, Section 1, Rules of Court — Defines the scope of certiorari and prohibition as remedies against acts of lower courts or tribunals.