GR 124680; (February, 2000) (Digest)
G.R. No. 124680-81 February 28, 2000
Imelda R. Marcos, petitioner, vs. The Sandiganbayan (First Division) and The People of the Philippines, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Imelda R. Marcos was charged before the Sandiganbayan with two counts of malversation of public funds. She filed a motion to quash the informations, arguing they were fatally defective for failing to adequately inform her of the charges, that they stated no offense, and that the court lacked jurisdiction due to alleged immunity from suit. The Sandiganbayan denied this motion in an order dated August 15, 1994. Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration, which the Sandiganbayan denied via a minute resolution dated January 16, 1996, issued over a year later. The resolution indicated the justices individually approved it on different dates without deliberation. The Sandiganbayan ruled the motion to quash was improper as it was filed after her arraignment and the commencement of trial.
ISSUE
Whether the Sandiganbayan acted with grave abuse of discretion in denying petitioner’s motion to quash on the ground it was filed after her arraignment.
RULING
The Supreme Court held that the Sandiganbayan erred in its procedural ruling. Under Rule 117, Section 8 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure, the failure to file a motion to quash before pleading generally constitutes a waiver, except for specific grounds. These non-waivable grounds include: (a) that no offense is charged, (b) lack of jurisdiction over the offense charged, (f) extinction of the offense or penalty, and (h) jeopardy. Petitioner’s motion to quash was precisely anchored on the grounds of “no offense charged” and “lack of jurisdiction over the offense charged.” Therefore, the Sandiganbayan’s denial, based on the mere timing of the motion after arraignment, disregarded the clear provision of the Rules and was a misapplication of the law. However, the Court ultimately dismissed the petition for certiorari and prohibition. The consistent doctrine is that the denial of a motion to quash is an interlocutory order; the proper remedy is not a special civil action but to proceed to trial and, if convicted, to appeal therefrom. The Court directed the Sandiganbayan to expedite the proceedings in accordance with Republic Act No. 8493.