GR 152444; (February, 2005) (Digest)
G.R. No. 152444 ; February 16, 2005
FRANCISCO C. BASA, MANUEL H. OSMEÑA, MARK PHILIP L. BASA and RENATO H. UY, petitioners, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.
FACTS
Petitioners, corporate officers of One World Land and Properties Corporation, were charged before the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) of Makati with Swindling (Article 316, Revised Penal Code) and Falsification of Public Document (Article 171, RPC). The Informations alleged that in March 1998, they mortgaged a property covered by TCT No. 21163 to Pioneer Insurance for ₱60 million, falsely representing it was free from encumbrance. In truth, the property was subject to a prior agreement with Pointer Construction, annotated on the predecessor titles but not carried over to the new title. A separate charge alleged they caused the cancellation of the old titles and the issuance of the new, “clean” TCT, thereby falsifying it.
Petitioners filed a Joint Motion to Quash, arguing the facts charged did not constitute an offense. The MeTC granted the motion and quashed the Informations. On appeal, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) reversed the MeTC, reinstated the cases, and ordered the prosecution to proceed. Petitioners then elevated the matter to the Court of Appeals via a petition for review.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals correctly dismissed the petition and affirmed the RTC’s reinstatement of the criminal cases.
RULING
Yes, the Court of Appeals was correct. The Supreme Court affirmed its dismissal. The core legal principle is that an order denying a motion to quash is interlocutory; it does not terminate the proceedings nor finally dispose of the parties’ rights. Consequently, such an order is not appealable. The proper remedy for an accused whose motion to quash is denied is to proceed to trial, raise the grounds as defenses, and, if convicted, appeal the judgment.
The RTC correctly found the Informations sufficient. In a motion to quash based on the ground that the facts charged do not constitute an offense, the movant bears the burden of proving the absence of essential elements in the allegations. The Court held that petitioners failed to specifically demonstrate which elements of swindling and falsification were missing from the Informations. The allegations were substantive and comprehensive enough to inform petitioners of the charges against them, enabling them to prepare a defense. Any further challenge to the merits of the allegations pertains to the trial’s outcome, not the sufficiency of the Information. Thus, the petition was denied.