G.R. No. 164682; September 14, 2011
Joel Galzote y Soriaga, Petitioner, vs. Jonathan Briones and People of the Philippines, Respondents.

FACTS

On January 23, 1997, an Information for robbery in an uninhabited place was filed against petitioner Joel Galzote before the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) of Manila. The Information alleged that on July 22, 1996, Galzote conspired with Rosendo Oquina to break into the Administration Office of the Prince Town Inn Corporation by destroying its ceiling and stealing cash amounting to ₱109,000.00. The petitioner moved to quash the Information, alleging it was patently irregular and fatally flawed in form and substance. The MeTC denied his motion and his subsequent motion for reconsideration. The petitioner then filed a petition for certiorari before the Regional Trial Court (RTC), arguing the MeTC committed grave abuse of discretion. The RTC granted the respondent’s motion to dismiss the petition, finding no grave abuse of discretion by the MeTC. The petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was also denied. The petitioner elevated the case to the Court of Appeals (CA) via another petition for certiorari. The CA dismissed the petition in its April 30, 2004 resolution, holding that the petitioner lost his right to appeal when he failed to appeal within the reglementary period and should have filed an appeal instead of a special civil action for certiorari upon receipt of the RTC’s denial. The CA also noted the petitioner failed to implead the People of the Philippines as a party-respondent and found no merit in his argument that the lower courts erred in denying his motion to quash. The CA denied his motion for reconsideration on July 23, 2004. The petitioner then filed the present Petition for Review on Certiorari before the Supreme Court.

ISSUE

1. Whether the petitioner’s recourse to a petition for certiorari before the CA was the proper remedy to question the denial of his motion to quash.
2. Whether the MeTC and RTC committed grave abuse of discretion in denying his motion to quash the Information for robbery.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition for lack of merit.
1. On the propriety of the remedy: The Court ruled that the denial of a motion to quash is an interlocutory order and is not appealable. A direct resort to a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 is an exception, permissible only for compelling reasons, such as when the lower court issued the order without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion, and the remedy of appeal would not afford adequate and expeditious relief. The petitioner failed to show any compelling reason to justify a petition for certiorari against the MeTC’s orders. The Court found that the MeTC did not commit any grave abuse of discretion, as its denial of the motion to quash was consistent with existing rules and jurisprudence. The ground raised by the petitioner—that his alleged co-conspirator had been convicted of a lesser offense (malicious mischief)—is not among the exclusive grounds for quashal under Section 3, Rule 117 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure and is an extraneous matter irrelevant to the validity of the Information.
2. On the validity of the Information: The Court held that the criminal information against the petitioner is sufficient in form and substance. It complies with Section 6, Rule 110 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, as it states: (a) the name of the accused; (b) the designated offense of robbery; (c) the acts constituting the offense with particularity; and (d) the date and place of the commission of the offense. The allegation of conspiracy need not be alleged with particularity since it was not charged as an offense in itself but only as a manner of incurring criminal liability. The fact that the petitioner’s alleged co-conspirator had been convicted of a different offense in another case does not bar the petitioner’s prosecution for robbery. Thus, the petitioner can be properly tried under the allegations of the Information.