RODOLFO MURCIA Y GONZALES AND MARIO GONZALES Y SALON, PETITIONERS, VS. HON. PRIMO G. SIO, JR., IN HIS CAPACITY AS THE PRESIDING JUDGE OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF CABANATUAN C…

Murcia versus Sio

The Case

This is a petition for certiorari filed by Rodolfo Murcia and Mario Gonzales against Judge Primo Sio, Jr., in his capacity as presiding judge of the Regional Trial Court of Cabanatuan City. The petitioners were charged with theft after they allegedly found lost ducks and failed to deliver them to the owner or to the local authorities. They moved to quash the information, the trial court refused, and they came to the Supreme Court to challenge that refusal. The case matters because it fixes two things every criminal procedure examinee must know: the proper remedy against a denial of a motion to quash, and the test for sufficiency of an information that charges the special form of theft committed by one who finds lost property.

Procedural History

The petitioners were charged with theft before the Regional Trial Court of Cabanatuan City, Branch 23. They filed a motion to quash the information, contending that the facts charged did not constitute an offense. The trial court denied the motion in an order dated October 23, 2012. The petitioners moved for reconsideration, and the trial court denied that too, in an order dated March 4, 2013. Instead of entering a plea and going to trial, the petitioners went straight to the Supreme Court by a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the 1997 Revised Rules of Civil Procedure, assailing both orders. The petition reached the Supreme Court as an original special civil action, not as an appeal.

Facts

On or about May 27, 2007, at around 8:30 in the evening, in Plaridel, Llanera, Nueva Ecija, the petitioners, together with a third accused who remained at large, were said to have connived. They allegedly found 250 pieces of ducks worth 37,500 pesos belonging to Christopher Alviar, and with intent to gain, they willfully failed to deliver the ducks to the local authorities or to the owner.

An information for theft was filed. It was later amended, and it was the amended information that the trial court examined. The petitioners moved to quash, arguing that the facts alleged did not constitute an offense. They pointed to a certification issued by the Llanera Police Station of the Philippine National Police in Nueva Ecija, claiming that the ownership of the private complainant over the lost ducks was not established, because it was one Eugenio Azur, not the private complainant, who had entered into an amicable settlement with them. They also claimed that the private complainant was not authorized to file the case and that the matter had already been settled amicably.

The trial court denied the motion to quash and later denied reconsideration. It found that a thorough examination of the amended information showed that the elements of the crime charged were sufficiently stated, and that the facts as presented established the elements of the crime as defined by Article 308 of the Revised Penal Code. Hence the petition.

Issues

• Whether or not a special civil action for certiorari is the proper remedy to assail the denial of a motion to quash an information.
• Whether or not the trial court acted with grave abuse of discretion in denying the motion to quash on the ground that the facts charged do not constitute an offense.

Applicable Provisions

Article 308 of the Revised Penal Code defines who are liable for theft, and it supplies the special form of theft charged against the petitioners. It provides:

Article 308. Who are liable for theft. Theft is likewise committed by: 1. Any person who, having found lost property, shall fail to deliver the same to the local authorities or to its owner.

The amended information tracked this provision, and the whole question of sufficiency turns on whether its averments match these elements.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the petition was the wrong remedy. A special civil action for certiorari is not the proper remedy to assail the denial of a motion to quash an information. Such a denial is merely interlocutory, hence not appealable, and ordinarily not the subject of certiorari. The proper procedure is for the accused to enter a plea, continue with the case in due course, and, when an unfavorable verdict is handed down, to take an appeal in the manner authorized by law. The petitioners should have gone to trial, reiterated their special defenses, and appealed an adverse decision. Certiorari lies against such an interlocutory order only in exceptional circumstances, and the Court found that none of those circumstances existed here.

On the second issue, the Court held that even assuming the remedy were allowed, the petition would still fail, because there was no grave abuse of discretion. When a motion to quash invokes the ground that the facts charged do not constitute an offense, the sufficiency of the information hinges on whether the facts alleged, if hypothetically admitted, meet the essential elements of the offense defined in the law. The Court put the test this way:

The fundamental test in considering a motion to quash anchored on Section 3 (a), Rule 117 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure, is the sufficiency of the averments in the information; that is, whether the facts alleged, if hypothetically admitted, would establish the essential elements of the offense charged as defined by law.

The Court stressed that matters aliunde, meaning matters extrinsic to the information, are not considered, and that facts constituting the defense of the accused must be proved at trial and are not proper grounds for a motion to quash. Measured against Article 308, the amended information alleged that the petitioners found lost ducks belonging to Christopher Alviar and willfully failed to deliver them to the local authorities or to the owner, with intent to gain. Those averments sufficiently charged the offense. The petitioners' claims that ownership was not proven and that the case had been settled amicably were matters of defense, best addressed during trial.

Doctrine

First, the denial of a motion to quash is an interlocutory order. It is not appealable, and certiorari is not the proper remedy against it; the accused must enter a plea, proceed to trial, and appeal any adverse judgment. Certiorari is available only upon exceptional circumstances, and none appeared here.

Second, on a motion to quash grounded on the facts charged not constituting an offense, the test is the sufficiency of the averments in the information. The question is whether the facts alleged, if hypothetically admitted, would establish the essential elements of the offense as defined by law, without considering evidence aliunde. The information must state every single fact necessary to constitute the offense charged.

Third, defenses such as lack of ownership in the complainant or amicable settlement are matters of defense that must be proved at trial. They are not proper grounds for a motion to quash.

Disposition

The petition was denied, and the orders of the Regional Trial Court of Cabanatuan City, Branch 23, denying the motion to quash and the motion for reconsideration, were affirmed.

Remember This

Memorize this line: the denial of a motion to quash is interlocutory, so the accused must plead, go to trial, and appeal, not file certiorari. Examiners use this case to test the proper remedy against a denied motion to quash and the sufficiency-of-information test under the special form of theft in Article 308 of the Revised Penal Code.