Quashing Motions: The Remedy Lies in Trial and Appeal, Not Certiorari

The denial of a motion to quash is a common procedural hurdle in Philippine criminal cases. Many accused persons, believing the charges against them are defective, immediately seek extraordinary remedies like certiorari. But the Supreme Court has made clear that this approach is wrong. In Enrile v. Manalastas (G.R. No. 166414, October 22, 2014), the Court reiterated that the proper remedy against a denied motion to quash is to proceed to trial and raise the issue on appeal if convicted.

The Facts of the Case

The case arose from a mauling incident on January 18, 2003, in Meycauayan, Bulacan. Three complainants charged petitioners Godofredo Enrile and Dr. Frederick Enrile, along with another individual, with frustrated homicide and two counts of less serious physical injuries before the Municipal Trial Court (MTC).

After preliminary investigation, the MTC found probable cause only for the two counts of less serious physical injuries. The petitioners moved to quash the informations, arguing that the complaints lacked an essential element: proof that the victims required medical attendance or were incapacitated for at least ten days. The MTC denied the motion, ruling that such matters were defenses that should be threshed out during trial.

Instead of proceeding to trial, the petitioners filed a petition for certiorari with the Regional Trial Court (RTC), which dismissed it. They then went to the Court of Appeals (CA) via certiorari and prohibition, but the CA also dismissed their petition—this time for being the wrong remedy. The petitioners elevated the matter to the Supreme Court.

The Issue

The central question was whether the petitioners could assail the denial of their motion to quash through a petition for certiorari, or whether they should have simply proceeded to trial and raised the issue on appeal.

The Court's Ruling

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the CA's resolutions. The Court emphasized that the denial of a motion to quash is an interlocutory order—it does not finally dispose of the case. As such, it is not appealable, and certiorari is not available when there is another plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.

The proper remedy, the Court held, is for the accused to enter a plea, go to trial, and if the decision is adverse, reiterate the denial of the motion to quash as an assigned error on appeal from the final judgment.

Sufficiency of the Informations

The Court also examined whether the informations were indeed defective. Under Section 6, Rule 110 of the Rules of Court, a complaint or information is sufficient if it states the name of the accused, the designation of the offense, the acts constituting the offense, the name of the offended party, the approximate date, and the place of commission.

Applying the "hypothetical admission" test—whether the facts alleged, if admitted, constitute the elements of the offense—the Court found the informations sufficient. The complaints specifically alleged that the injuries would require medical attendance or incapacitate the victims for 10 to 12 days and 12 to 15 days, respectively. These averments satisfied the elements of less serious physical injuries under the Revised Penal Code, which defines the offense as one that incapacitates the victim for labor for ten days or more or requires medical assistance for the same period.

The petitioners' argument that the medical certificates were speculative was misplaced. The Court noted that proof of the actual healing period is an evidentiary matter that should be presented at trial, not during preliminary investigation or in a motion to quash.

Practical Takeaways

• A denied motion to quash is interlocutory. It cannot be appealed immediately, and certiorari is generally not available because the accused still has the remedy of proceeding to trial.
• Go to trial first. The proper course is to enter a plea, undergo trial, and if convicted, assign the denial of the motion to quash as an error on appeal.
• Certiorari requires grave abuse of discretion. To avail of this extraordinary remedy, the accused must show that the trial court acted without or in excess of jurisdiction, or gravely abused its discretion—a high bar that mere disagreement with a ruling does not meet.
• Motions to quash test the sufficiency of the information on its face. Matters of defense, such as the actual duration of medical attendance, are for trial, not for a motion to quash.
• Preliminary investigation is not a trial. It only determines probable cause; it does not require proof beyond reasonable doubt.

This article is general information and not legal advice. For your specific situation, consult a lawyer or ask ASG Legal AI.