Galzote vs. Briones

A petition for certiorari is not the proper remedy to question the denial of a motion to quash; the accused must proceed to trial and, if convicted, appeal the judgment, because the denial of a motion to quash is an interlocutory order, and certiorari is available only in the absence of an appeal or any other adequate, plain, and speedy remedy.

Joel Galzote and Rosendo Oquina were charged with robbery in an uninhabited place for allegedly breaking into the Administration Office of Prince Town Inn Corporation by destroying the Jipson board ceiling with a fan knife and stealing ₱109,000.00. Oquina was separately charged. Galzote sought to quash the information, arguing it was flawed in form and substance, specifically citing that Oquina had been convicted of the lesser offense of malicious mischief in a separate case.

• The Charge: On January 23, 1997, an Information was filed before the MeTC of Manila charging Joel Galzote and Rosendo Oquina with robbery in an uninhabited place. The information alleged that on July 22, 1996, the accused, conspiring together, broke into the Administration Office of the Prince Town Inn Corporation by destroying the Jipson board ceiling with a fan knife and passing through an opening not intended for entrance or egress, and took ₱109,000.00 without the owner's consent.
• Motion to Quash: Galzote moved to quash the information, claiming it was fatally flawed in form and substance. The MeTC denied the motion and the subsequent motion for reconsideration.
• Elevation to RTC: Galzote elevated the MeTC ruling to the RTC via certiorari, alleging grave abuse of discretion. Respondent Jonathan Briones moved to dismiss, citing failure to prosecute, improper remedy, and absence of abuse of discretion. The RTC granted the motion to dismiss and denied reconsideration.
• Elevation to CA: Galzote filed a petition for certiorari before the CA. The CA dismissed the petition, ruling that Galzote lost his right to appeal by not appealing the RTC order within the reglementary period and that certiorari was improper. The CA also noted the failure to implead the People of the Philippines and found no merit in the claim that the lower courts erred in denying the motion to quash, explaining that conspiracy need not be alleged with particularity and a co-conspirator's conviction for a lesser offense does not bar prosecution for robbery. The CA denied Galzote's motion for reconsideration.

• Propriety of Certiorari: Petitioner argued that his recourse to a petition for certiorari before the CA was proper, claiming both the MeTC and the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion in denying his motion to quash.
• Validity of the Information: Petitioner maintained that the information was flawed in form and substance, asserting that the trial courts failed to recognize these defects.
• Failure to Implead the People: Petitioner claimed that his failure to implead the People of the Philippines as a party-respondent was not fatal to his petition before the CA.

• Improper Remedy and Delay: Respondent countered before the RTC that the petitioner failed to prosecute the petition for an unreasonably long period, that certiorari was not the proper remedy for the denial of a motion to quash, and that the MeTC did not abuse its discretion.
• Procedural Infirmities: Respondent argued before the CA that the petitioner should have appealed the RTC order instead of filing certiorari and that the petitioner failed to implead the People of the Philippines.
• Sufficiency of the Information: Respondent maintained that the information was valid and that the conviction of a co-conspirator for a lesser offense did not bar the petitioner's prosecution for robbery.

• Propriety of Certiorari: Whether a petition for certiorari is the proper remedy to question the denial of a motion to quash.
• Grave Abuse of Discretion: Whether the MeTC committed grave abuse of discretion in denying the motion to quash based on the alleged flaws in the information.
• Correctness of CA Dismissal: Whether the CA correctly dismissed the petition on procedural and substantive grounds.

• Propriety of Certiorari: Certiorari was ruled an improper remedy because the denial of a motion to quash is an interlocutory order that is not appealable, and the plain, speedy, and adequate remedy is to proceed to trial and appeal any resulting conviction. Direct resort to certiorari is an exception requiring compelling reasons, such as grave abuse of discretion where appeal would not afford adequate relief, which was not established here.
• Grave Abuse of Discretion: No grave abuse of discretion was committed by the MeTC because the ground invoked by the petitioner—conviction of a co-conspirator for a lesser offense—is not among the exclusive grounds for quashal under Section 3, Rule 117 of the Rules of Court and is extraneous to the validity of the information. The information was found sufficient in form and substance under Section 6, Rule 110, as it stated the name of the accused, the designated offense, the acts constituting the offense with particularity, and the date and place of commission.
• Correctness of CA Dismissal: The CA dismissal was affirmed because the RTC's dismissal of the certiorari petition was a final order from an original action, making an ordinary appeal to the CA under Section 2, Rule 41 the correct remedy, not another petition for certiorari. Furthermore, no grave abuse of discretion was committed by the RTC, which merely affirmed a correct ruling.

• Remedy from Denial of a Motion to Quash — The denial of a motion to quash is an interlocutory order and cannot be appealed; neither is it a proper subject of certiorari if an adequate remedy exists. The proper course is to proceed to trial and, if convicted, raise the denial of the motion to quash as an error on appeal. Certiorari is available only in exceptional circumstances involving grave abuse of discretion where appeal would not afford adequate and expeditious relief.
• Sufficiency of a Criminal Information — A complaint or information is sufficient if it states: (1) the name of the accused; (2) the designation of the offense given by the statute; (3) the acts or omissions complained of as constituting the offense; (4) the name of the offended party; (5) the approximate date of the commission of the offense; and (6) the place where the offense was committed. When an offense is committed by more than one person, all shall be included in the information.

• "As a rule, the denial of a motion to quash is an interlocutory order and is not appealable; an appeal from an interlocutory order is not allowed under Section 1(b), Rule 41 of the Rules of Court. Neither can it be a proper subject of a petition for certiorari which can be used only in the absence of an appeal or any other adequate, plain and speedy remedy." — Defines the procedural posture of a denied motion to quash and limits the use of certiorari.
• "The designated purpose of a motion to quash is to assail the validity of the criminal information (or criminal complaint) for defects or defenses apparent on the face of the information." — Clarifies that extraneous matters, such as a co-accused's separate conviction, cannot be raised in a motion to quash.

• Santos v. People, G.R. No. 173176 (2008) — Followed. Cited for the proposition that certiorari cannot substitute for appeal and that dilatory petitions based on scant allegations of grave abuse of discretion deserve sanction.
• Los Baños v. Pedro, G.R. No. 173588 (2009) — Followed. Cited for the principle that a motion to quash assails the validity of the information based on defects apparent on its face.
• Vios v. Pantangco, Jr., G.R. No. 163103 (2009) — Followed. Cited to establish that a decision on a certiorari petition filed with the RTC is a final order, making appeal the proper remedy to the CA.
• Uy Kiao Eng v. Lee, G.R. No. 176831 (2010) — Followed. Cited for the rule that the existence of a plain, speedy, and adequate remedy of appeal precludes certiorari.

• Section 1(b), Rule 41, Rules of Court — Prohibits appeals from interlocutory orders. Applied to classify the denial of a motion to quash as an unappealable interlocutory order.
• Section 2, Rule 41, Rules of Court — Governs ordinary appeals from the RTC to the CA in cases decided in the exercise of original jurisdiction. Applied to determine that the petitioner should have appealed the RTC's final order dismissing the certiorari petition, rather than filing another certiorari petition with the CA.
• Section 3, Rule 117, 2000 Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure — Enumerates the exclusive grounds for quashal of a complaint or information. Applied to reject the petitioner's ground that his co-conspirator's conviction for a lesser offense warranted quashal, as it is not among the listed grounds.
• Section 6, Rule 110, 2000 Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure — Prescribes the requisites for the sufficiency of a complaint or information. Applied to uphold the validity of the information for robbery, which was found to contain all the required particulars.

Antonio T. Carpio (Chairperson), Mariano C. del Castillo, Jose Portugal Perez, Maria Lourdes P. A. Sereno.