JOEL GALZOTE Y SORIAGA, PETITIONER, VS. JONATHAN BRIONES AND PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENTS.

Galzote versus Briones

The Case

This is the case of Galzote versus Briones, a petition for review on certiorari brought by Joel Galzote against Jonathan Briones and the People of the Philippines. Galzote was charged with robbery in an uninhabited place, and he attacked the criminal information by a motion to quash. When the Metropolitan Trial Court and then the Regional Trial Court refused to quash, he went up on certiorari instead of going to trial. The case matters because it teaches the bar candidate two things at once: the proper remedy against the denial of a motion to quash, and the sufficiency of an information under the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure.

Procedural History

The prosecution filed the information for robbery in an uninhabited place before the Metropolitan Trial Court of Manila. Galzote moved to quash, alleging that the information was patently irregular and fatally flawed in form and in substance. The Metropolitan Trial Court denied the motion, and it also denied his motion for reconsideration.

Galzote then filed a petition for certiorari before the Regional Trial Court of Manila, arguing that the Metropolitan Trial Court committed grave abuse of discretion. The Regional Trial Court granted the respondent's motion to dismiss and dismissed the petition, and it likewise denied reconsideration.

Galzote next filed a petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals dismissed the petition, holding that he should have filed an appeal within the fifteen-day reglementary period under Rule 41, and noting that he failed to implead the People of the Philippines as party-respondent. It also found no merit in his argument that the lower courts erred in denying the motion to quash. Reconsideration was denied. Hence, this petition for review on certiorari before the Supreme Court.

Facts

On July 22, 1996, according to the information, Galzote, conspiring with one Rosendo Oquina, broke into and entered the Administration Office of the Prince Town Inn Corporation in Manila. The entry was allegedly made by destroying the ceiling with a fan knife and passing through an opening not intended for entrance or egress. Once inside, they allegedly took cash money belonging to the corporation.

On January 23, 1997, the prosecution filed the information for robbery in an uninhabited place against Galzote before the Metropolitan Trial Court of Manila. His alleged co-conspirator, Oquina, had already been charged with the same offense in a separate case.

Galzote moved to quash on the ground that the information was flawed in form and in substance. Among his arguments was that his co-conspirator had been convicted of a lesser offense, malicious mischief, in another case. Both the Metropolitan Trial Court and the Regional Trial Court refused to quash, and the Court of Appeals declined to disturb those rulings.

Issues

• Whether or not the denial of a motion to quash may be questioned directly by a special civil action for certiorari instead of proceeding to trial.
• Whether or not the Regional Trial Court, in denying the motion to quash, committed grave abuse of discretion.
• Whether or not the criminal information against Galzote was sufficient in form and substance.
• Whether or not the conviction of his alleged co-conspirator for a lesser offense bars the prosecution of Galzote for robbery.

Applicable Provisions

Section 6, Rule 110 of the 2000 Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure provides:

Section 6. Sufficiency of complaint or information. A complaint or information is sufficient if it states the name of the accused; the designation of the offense given by the statute; the acts or omissions complained of as constituting the offense; the name of the offended party; the approximate date of the commission of the offense; and the place where the offense was committed. When an offense is committed by more than one person, all of them shall be included in the complaint or information.

This is the yardstick the Court used to test the information on its face.

Section 2, Rule 41 of the Rules of Court provides:

Section 2. Modes of appeal. (a) Ordinary appeal. The appeal to the Court of Appeals in cases decided by the Regional Trial Court in the exercise of its original jurisdiction shall be taken by filing a notice of appeal with the court which rendered the judgment or final order appealed from and serving a copy thereof upon the adverse party.

This is the remedy the Court held Galzote should have used against the Regional Trial Court's order.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the denial of a motion to quash is an interlocutory order and is not appealable. The plain and speedy remedy is to proceed to trial, and if conviction follows, to raise the denial of the motion to quash as an added ground on appeal. Certiorari is the exception, not the general rule, and must rest on compelling reasons, such as grave abuse of discretion where appeal would not afford adequate and expeditious relief. Galzote showed no such reason.

On the second issue, the Court found no grave abuse of discretion. The ground Galzote invoked, that his co-conspirator had been convicted of a lesser offense, is not among the exclusive grounds for quashing an information. The Court stressed that the purpose of a motion to quash is to assail the validity of the information for defects apparent on its face.

On the third issue, the Court held the information sufficient. It states the name of the accused, the designated offense of robbery, the manner of commission and the petitioner's participation with particularity, and the date and place of the commission. It conforms to the guidelines under Section 6, Rule 110.

On the fourth issue, the Court held that the conviction of the alleged co-conspirator for malicious mischief is not a bar to the prosecution of Galzote for robbery. Conspiracy need not be alleged with particularity since it is charged not as an offense in itself but as a manner of incurring criminal liability.

Finally, the Court held that the petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals was the wrong remedy, since the Regional Trial Court's order was a final order disposing of an original action, reviewable by ordinary appeal. It warned that certiorari based on scant allegations of grave abuse of discretion cannot be allowed to delay litigation.

Doctrine

First, the denial of a motion to quash is an interlocutory order; it is not appealable, and the accused must proceed to trial and raise the denial as an error on appeal. Certiorari lies only in extraordinary circumstances firmly grounded on compelling reasons.

Second, a motion to quash tests only defects apparent on the face of the information, measured against Section 6, Rule 110. The grounds for quashing are exclusive, and matters extraneous to the face of the information, such as the outcome of a co-conspirator's separate case, are irrelevant.

Third, conspiracy, when charged only as a manner of incurring liability, need not be alleged with particularity.

Disposition

The Supreme Court denied the petition for lack of merit, affirmed the resolutions of the Court of Appeals, and imposed treble costs against the petitioner.

Remember This

Memorize this line: the denial of a motion to quash is an interlocutory order, so the remedy is to go to trial and appeal, not to file certiorari. Examiners use this case on remedial law to test the modes of appeal and the requisites of certiorari, and on criminal procedure to test the sufficiency of an information and the exclusive grounds for a motion to quash.