CRIM PRO DIGEST: Gonzales v. Salvador, et. al. (GR No. 158340)

Criminal Procedure, Digest focusing on Rule 117: Effect of Sustaining the Motion to Quash


GR No. 168340                     December 5, 2006


RAFAEL GONZALES, Petitioner,


v.


HON. TRANQUIL P. SALVADOR in his capacity as Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court of Makati City, Branch 63, and GLEN DALE a.k.a RENE MARTEL, Respondents.


CARPIO MORALES, J.:


FACTS:

  • Petitioner, Rafael Gonzales accuses Glen Dale, the Respondent, of Libel based on an article titled "Glad Tidings for Manila Polo Club Members."

  • Makati Prosecutor's Office finds probable cause, and an Information is filed with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) Makati.

  • Dale challenges the prosecutor's resolution through petition for Review with the Department of Justice (DOJ), which is dismissed.

  • Court of Appeals denies Dale's petition for certiorai and prohibition.

  • Respondent files a Motion to Quash, citing lack of jurisdiction and defects in the information.

  • Trial Court grants Dale's Motion to Quash.

  • Gonzales files a motion to order the prosecution to amend the information, invoking Section 4, Rule 117.

  • Dale opposes, claiming the court lacks jurisdiction to reconsider its order and the motion was untimely.

  • Gonzales argues the motions' timeliness based on the rule allowing filing a new information within further time for good cause.

  • RTC grants Gonzales' motion to amend the information.

  • Dale files a Motion for Reconsideration (MR) and the Public Prosecutor files the amended information.

  • Dale's MR is granted by RTC and Gonzales' Mr is denied.

  • The case is elevated to the Court of Appeals (CA), which dismisses it.

ISSUE:

  1. Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in holding that, under Rule 117, Section 4 (amendment) an 5 (filing), the order to file another information was discretionary with the court.


HELD:

NO. The petition is denied due to the ff.:

  1. Section 4 - Amendment of Complaint or Information:

    • Applies if the trial court finds a defect that can be cured by amendment.

    • Once the court's order to quash becomes final, there is nothing more to amend.

  2. Section 5 - Effect of sustaining the Motion to Quash:

    • The trial court has discretion to order filing another information within a specified period.

    • The order must be included in the same order granting the motion to quash.

    • The order to file another information may be issued after quashing, within a time the court allows for good cause.


Legal Basis and Principles

  • Not all defects in information can be cured by amendment, as seen in Austin v. Pamintuan.

  • Amendments for jurisdiction are impermissible once an order to quash becomes final.

  • The court can order the filing of another information within a specified period after sustaining a motion to quash.


SOURCE:

G.R. No. 168340. (n.d.). https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/dec2006/gr_168340_2006.html


                                


Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

CRIM PRO Digest: Enrile v. Sandiganbayan (G.R. Nos. 213847)

  Criminal Procedure, Digest focusing on  Rule 114:  Bail, a Matter of Right; Exception G. R. No. 213847                 July 12, 2016 JUAN PONCE ENRILE , Petitioner, vs.  SANDIGANBAYAN (THIRD DIVISION) AND PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,  Respondents. BERSAMIN, J. : DOCTRINE: Primary objective of bail  – The strength of the Prosecution's case, albeit a good measure of the accused's propensity for flight or for causing harm to the public, is subsidiary to the primary objective of bail, which is to  ensure that the accused appears at trial . Bail is a right and a matter of discretion  – Right to bail is afforded in Sec. 13, Art III of the 1987 Constitution and repeated in Sec. 7, Rule 114 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure to wit: “No person charged with a capital offense, or an offense punishable by reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment, shall be admitted to bail when evidence of guilt is strong, regardless of ...
Read more

How to Digest a Case: FORMAT

  FORMAT OF A CASE DIGEST TITLE: Include the petitioner and respondents of the case and the reference. Sometimes, students only include the Volume Number of the Supreme Court Reports Annotated (SCRA)/Philippine Reports (Phil) and the first page where the case appeared or written. Others only include the Gazette Record Number together with the Date of the case. Still, others include both. Others even add the ponente or the justice that penned the case. FACTS: There is no need to include all the facts. Just include those that are relevant to the subject. The contents of the facts must be brief and concise. It must be limited to the main facts of the case which of course should focus on the particular subject assigned. ISSUES: Include only those that are relevant. Issues are usually framed in the form of questions that are answerable by "yes" or "no," for example, "Is the contract void? “Sometimes, students frame the question by starting it with the word "whe...
Read more

CRIM PRO Digest: Soria and Bista v. Desierto, et.al. (G.R. Nos. 153254-25)

  Criminal Procedure, Digest focusing on  Rule 113:  Arrest, Duty of an Arresting Officer G. R. Nos. 153524-25                 January 31, 2005 RODOLFO SORIA and EDIMAR BISTA , Petitioners, vs.  HON. ANIANO DESIERTO in his capacity as Head of the Office of the Ombudsman, HON. ORLANDO CASIMIRO in his capacity as Deputy Ombudsman for Military, P/INS. JEFFREY T. GOROSPE, SPO2 ROLANDO G. REGACHO, SPO1 ALFREDO B. ALVIAR JR., PO3 JAIME D. LAZARO, PO2 FLORANTE B. CARDENAS, PO1 JOSEPH A. BENAZA, SPO1 FRANKLIN D. CABAYA and SPO4 PEDRO PAREL,  Respondents. CHICO-NAZARIO, J. : DOCTRINE: Art. 125 of the Revised Penal Code states that the Delay in the delivery of detained persons to the proper judicial authorities. - The penalties provided in the preceding article shall be imposed upon the public officer or employee who shall detain any person for some legal ground and shall fail to deliver such person to the proper judicial autho...
Read more