Gonzales vs. Salvador

The order to file another information, if warranted by the circumstances of the case, must be contained in the same order granting the motion to quash; once the quashal order becomes final and executory, the trial court may no longer direct the filing of another information.

Rafael Gonzales filed a libel complaint against respondent Glen Dale a.k.a. Rene Martel arising from an article published in the January 7, 1999 issue of Today. The City Prosecutor of Makati found probable cause and filed an Information in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati City. The Information alleged that the article was published in Makati City but omitted any allegation that the offended party actually resided in Makati or that the libelous article was printed and first published there.

• The Libel Complaint and Information: Rafael Gonzales filed a libel complaint against Glen Dale for an article published in the January 7, 1999 issue of Today under the nom de plume Rene Martel. The Makati City Prosecutor found probable cause and filed an Information in the RTC Makati. The Information alleged the publication occurred in Makati City but failed to allege that the offended party actually resided in Makati or that the article was printed and first published there.
• Motion to Quash: After pleading not guilty, respondent filed a Motion to Quash on the ground of lack of jurisdiction over the offense charged, citing Article 360 of the Revised Penal Code which prescribes specific venues for libel actions. The RTC granted the motion on May 29, 2002, finding the Information defective for its failure to allege jurisdictional venue.
• Attempt to Amend: Petitioner received the May 29, 2002 Order on May 30, 2002. Instead of filing a motion for reconsideration or an appeal, petitioner filed a motion to order the public prosecutor to amend the Information on June 25, 2002—26 days after receipt, beyond the 15-day reglementary period. The RTC initially granted this motion on December 26, 2002, and directed the prosecutor to amend the Information within 10 days.
• Reversal of the Amendment Order: Respondent filed a Motion for Reconsideration, arguing that under Rule 117, amendment is only allowed before a motion to quash is granted, and the order to file another information must be contained in the same order granting the motion to quash. The RTC granted respondent's Motion for Reconsideration on July 16, 2003, setting aside its December 26, 2002 Order. Petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration was denied on June 10, 2004.

• Timeliness of Amendment: Petitioner argued that the motion to amend was timely filed because the Rules allow the filing of a new information "within such further time as the court may allow for good cause," and the May 29, 2002 Order failed to provide a period within which the prosecution could file an amended information.
• Defective Information Not Subject to Reglementary Periods: Petitioner maintained that a defective or deficient information cannot be the proper subject of a motion for reconsideration or appeal, hence not subject to the reglementary periods provided in the Rules.
• Separate Order for New Information: Petitioner posited that the order to file another information may be separately issued at any time after the quashal of the information, anchoring this on the clause "within such further time as the court may allow for good cause" in Section 5 of Rule 117.

• Finality of Quashal Order: Respondent countered that it was beyond the jurisdiction of the trial court to reconsider or recall its May 29, 2002 Order, as it had become final after the lapse of 15 days.
• Timing of Amendment: Respondent argued that under Section 4 of Rule 117, the amendment of a defective information may be made only before a motion to quash is granted; once quashed, especially when the quashal had become final, the information can no longer be amended.
• Timing of Order for New Information: Respondent maintained that under Section 5 of Rule 117, the order to file another information must be contained in the same order sustaining the motion to quash, since the accused would have been discharged by the time a new information is filed.

• Amendment of Information: Whether an information may be amended after the order granting the motion to quash has become final and executory.
• Order to File New Information: Whether the order to file another information may be issued separately after the order granting the motion to quash has become final and executory.

• Amendment of Information: Amendment of an information under Section 4 of Rule 117 applies only before the trial court grants the motion to quash. Once the court issues an order granting the motion to quash and such order becomes final and executory, there is nothing more to amend. Furthermore, the defect in the information—the absence of an allegation regarding the actual residence of the offended party or the place of printing and first publication—is a substantial defect that cannot be cured by amendment after the accused has entered a plea, as amendments to vest jurisdiction upon a court are not permissible.
• Order to File New Information: The order to file another information, if warranted by the circumstances of the case, must be contained in the same order granting the motion to quash. The clause "within such further time as the court may allow for good cause" in Section 5 of Rule 117 denotes a plain extension of time to file a new information pursuant to an existing order, not an extension of the period to issue an order to file. Because the order granting the motion to quash had attained finality, it had become immutable and could no longer be modified to direct the filing of another information.

• Immutability of Final Judgments/Orders — A judgment or order that has become final and executory becomes immutable and unalterable, and may no longer be modified or amended by the court that rendered it, except to correct clerical errors or supply nunc pro tunc entries. Applied to hold that the trial court could no longer direct the amendment or filing of a new information after its May 29, 2002 Order quashing the information became final due to the prosecution's failure to appeal or move for reconsideration within the reglementary period.
• Amendment vs. Refiling under Rule 117 — Section 4 of Rule 117 governs the amendment of an information and applies before the motion to quash is granted; Section 5 governs the filing of a new information and applies after the motion to quash is sustained. Under Section 5, the order to file another information must be contained in the same order granting the motion to quash; if the quashal order does not contain such directive and becomes final, the court may no longer order the filing of another information.

• "The amendment of an information under Section 4 of Rule 117 applies if the trial court finds that there is a defect in the information and the defect can be cured by amendment, in which case the court shall order the prosecution to amend the information. Once the court issues an order granting the motion to quash the information and such order becomes final and executory, however, there is nothing more to amend."
• "The order to file another information, if determined to be warranted by the circumstances of the case, must be contained in the same order granting the motion to quash. If the order sustaining the motion to quash does not order the filing of another information, and said order becomes final and executory, then the court may no longer direct the filing of another information."

• Agustin v. Pamintuan, G.R. No. 164938, August 22, 2005, 467 SCRA 601 — Followed. The absence of any allegation in the information that the offended party was actually residing in the locus criminis or that the libelous articles were printed and first published there is a substantial defect that cannot be amended after the accused enters a plea; amendments to vest jurisdiction upon a court are not permissible.

• Article 360, Revised Penal Code — Prescribes the specific venue for criminal and civil actions for written defamations: the province or city where the libelous article is printed and first published or where any of the offended parties actually resides at the time of the commission of the offense. Applied to determine that the failure to allege these jurisdictional facts in the Information rendered it defective.
• Section 4, Rule 117, Rules of Court — Governs the amendment of a complaint or information when a motion to quash is based on a defect that can be cured by amendment. Applied to hold that amendment is only permissible before the motion to quash is granted.
• Section 5, Rule 117, Rules of Court — Governs the effect of sustaining a motion to quash, providing that the court may order that another complaint or information be filed except as provided in Section 6. Applied to hold that such an order must be contained in the same order granting the motion to quash, and the "further time" clause merely extends the period to file the information, not to issue the order.
• Section 9(a), Rule 117, Rules of Court — Provides that lack of jurisdiction over the offense charged is not deemed waived even if the accused fails to file a motion to quash on that ground before arraignment. Cited to underscore the fundamental nature of the jurisdictional defect.

Leonardo A. Quisumbing (Chairperson), Antonio T. Carpio, Dante O. Tinga, Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr.