G.R. No. 83754 ; February 18, 1991
TEODORO B. CRUZ, JR., petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, Fifteenth Division, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Teodoro B. Cruz, Jr. was charged before the Regional Trial Court of Makati with four counts of estafa through falsification of public documents. The informations alleged that he conspired with others to sell properties of the late Clemente Guerrero using fictitious deeds of sale notarized by him in November and December 1980. After pleading not guilty at his arraignment, Cruz filed a motion to dismiss on the ground that the informations charged no offense. At the hearing on this motion, he presented testimonial and documentary evidence, which the prosecution did not refute, opting instead to move for the denial of the motion.
The trial court denied the motion to dismiss, a ruling affirmed by the Court of Appeals. The appellate court held that the denial was proper to avoid technicalities and to serve the interest of substantial justice, allowing the prosecution to present its evidence in a full trial. It noted that the petitioner’s tactic of filing a motion to dismiss after arraignment and presenting evidence prematurely could preclude a full hearing on the merits.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court committed grave abuse of discretion in denying the petitioner’s motion to dismiss the criminal informations.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition, ruling that the trial court did not commit grave abuse of discretion. The fundamental test for a motion to quash on the ground that the information charges no offense is whether the facts alleged, if hypothetically admitted, establish the essential elements of the crime. The Court found that the challenged informations sufficiently alleged the elements of estafa through falsification. Therefore, it was improper to resolve the charges preliminarily based solely on the petitioner’s evidence without a full trial.
The Court emphasized that an order denying a motion to quash is interlocutory and not appealable, nor can it be the subject of a petition for certiorari, absent a showing of grave abuse of discretion. The proper remedy is to proceed to trial and raise the issue on appeal from a final judgment. The trial judge acted within his sound discretion, as authorized by jurisprudence, in denying the dismissal to allow the prosecution to adduce evidence and avoid potential technicalities. Since the informations were not insufficient on their face, substantial justice required that the cases follow their normal course. The cases were remanded to the trial court for further proceedings.