GR L 16570; (February, 1963) (Digest)

G.R. No. L-16570. February 28, 1963.
ARSENIO SOLIDUM, Judge of the Court of First Instance of Manila, and HERMOGENES CONCEPCION, JR. as City Fiscal of Manila, petitioners, vs. JAIME HERNANDEZ, respondent.

FACTS

Respondent Jaime Hernandez, then Secretary of Finance, was charged under Article 216 of the Revised Penal Code for allegedly having a prohibited interest in a “contrato u operacion.” The amended information alleged that as a stockholder of Avegon Construction and Electrical Co., Inc., he, in his official capacities as Secretary of Finance and as presiding officer of the Monetary Board, granted the corporation tax exemptions and favorable dollar allocations. Hernandez moved to quash the information on three grounds: that mere stock ownership does not fall under Article 216’s prohibition; that he held no shares at the material times; and that Article 216 is constitutionally inoperative against a department head under Article VII, Section 11(2) of the Constitution. The City Fiscal opposed, arguing the allegations sufficiently charged an offense, the shareholding timing was evidentiary, and no constitutional inconsistency existed.
Judge Arsenio Solidum denied the motion to quash. His order stated the motion raised fundamental questions that could not be decided “properly, intelligently and adequately without presentation of evidence,” and he reserved ruling on the constitutional issue. Hernandez’s motion for reconsideration was denied. He then filed a petition for prohibition and/or mandamus with the Court of Appeals, which issued a writ of prohibition, effectively halting the criminal proceedings.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals correctly issued the writ of prohibition against Judge Solidum for denying the motion to quash without an immediate ruling on the constitutional challenge.

RULING

The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals and lifted the writ of prohibition. The Court held that Judge Solidum did not act with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in deferring a definitive ruling on the motion to quash. The legal logic is anchored on the nature and limited scope of the extraordinary writ of prohibition. Prohibition is not a remedy for mere errors of judgment but is granted only when a tribunal acts without jurisdiction, in excess of jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion equivalent to a refusal to perform a legal duty. A court’s determination that a motion to quash raises factual or complex legal issues requiring evidentiary hearing is a legitimate exercise of judicial discretion.
The Court found no arbitrariness in Judge Solidum’s cautious order, which explicitly recognized the fundamental and intertwined factual and legal questions presented. His decision to require evidence was a prudent exercise of discretion to ensure an adequate basis for a ruling, particularly on the factual claim of shareholding timing and its legal implications under Article 216. Furthermore, Hernandez had an adequate and speedy remedy in the ordinary course of law—specifically, an appeal from a final judgment—which militates against the grant of the extraordinary writ. The Supreme Court thus remanded the case to the trial court for continuation of the proceedings.