GR 138297; (January, 2006) (Digest)
G.R. No. 138297 ; January 27, 2006
Desiderio De Los Reyes and Myrna Villanueva, Petitioners, vs. People of the Philippines and Hon. Antonio M. Eugenio, Jr., Presiding Judge, Regional Trial Court, Calamba, Laguna, Branch 34, Respondents.
FACTS
Petitioners Desiderio De Los Reyes and Myrna Villanueva were charged before the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of Calauan, Laguna, for violating Republic Act No. 8048 (The Coconut Preservation Act of 1995) for allegedly cutting down coconut trees without a permit. Instead of filing their counter-affidavits, petitioners filed a Motion for Preliminary Investigation, which the MTC denied, ruling that an accused is not entitled to a preliminary investigation in cases cognizable by the MTC. Petitioners then filed a Motion to Quash the complaint, arguing that its allegations did not constitute an offense. The MTC denied this motion.
Petitioners subsequently filed a petition for certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus with the Regional Trial Court (RTC), alleging that the MTC committed grave abuse of discretion in denying their Motion to Quash. The RTC dismissed their petition, holding that the allegations in the complaint, if hypothetically admitted, sufficiently constituted the offense. The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC Orders but noted that since petitioners were raising a question of law, their proper remedy was a petition for review on certiorari with the Supreme Court under Rule 45.
ISSUE
Whether the Supreme Court should grant the petition for certiorari filed under Rule 65 assailing the RTC Orders that dismissed petitioners’ challenge to the MTC’s denial of their Motion to Quash.
RULING
The Supreme Court dismissed the petition. The Court held that petitioners committed a procedural error by filing a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 instead of an appeal via a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45. Certiorari is not a substitute for a lost appeal. Petitioners should have filed a Rule 45 petition after the Court of Appeals rendered its decision.
Furthermore, the petition was filed out of time. Under Rule 65, a petition for certiorari must be filed within 60 days from notice of the assailed order. Petitioners received the RTC Order denying their motion for reconsideration on April 21, 1998, but filed the instant petition only on May 6, 1999, which is beyond the reglementary period.
Even assuming the petition was procedurally sound, the Court found it dismissible for violating the principle of hierarchy of courts. Petitioners should have filed their Rule 65 petition with the Court of Appeals, which has original jurisdiction over such writs. On the merits, the Court reiterated the doctrine that the denial of a motion to quash in a criminal case is not a proper subject of certiorari. The correct remedy is for the accused to proceed to trial and reiterate their defenses, reserving the right to appeal an adverse judgment after trial on the merits.