PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PETITIONER, VS. AQUILINO ANDRADE, ROMAN LACAP, YONG FUNG YUEN, RICKY YU, VICENTE SY, ALVIN SO, ROMUALDO MIRANDA, SINDAO MELIBAS, SATURNINO LIWANAG, RO…

People versus Andrade

The Case

This is the People of the Philippines against Aquilino Andrade and his co-respondents, inmates of the National Bilibid Prison who were charged with the use of dangerous drugs under Republic Act No. 9165 after a random drug test conducted inside the penitentiary returned positive results for methamphetamine hydrochloride, commonly known as shabu. The action reaches us as a petition for review on certiorari brought by the State after the trial court dismissed the informations and the Court of Appeals affirmed. The case matters because it draws the line between the prosecutor's determination of probable cause and the judge's, and because it reminds every practitioner that a motion to quash grounded on the insufficiency of the facts charged is a defect the law prefers to cure by amendment rather than by dismissal.

Procedural History

Following a random drug test ordered by the Director of the Bureau of Corrections, twenty-one inmates, including the respondents, tested positive for shabu after confirmatory testing by the National Bureau of Investigation Forensic Chemistry Division. Identical informations for violation of Section 15, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 were filed against them before the Regional Trial Court of Muntinlupa. The respondents pleaded not guilty at arraignment, and the case was set for pre-trial and trial. Thereafter, the respondents filed a Consolidated Motion to Dismiss on the ground that the facts alleged in the informations do not constitute an offense. Without awaiting the scheduled trial dates, the trial court issued an order granting the motion and dismissing the cases, finding no probable cause. The prosecution's motion for reconsideration was denied, so it went to the Court of Appeals on certiorari. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court in its decision of May 2008, and denied reconsideration in its resolution of February 2009. The People then came to the Supreme Court by petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45.

Facts

On June 30, 2003, pursuant to the instructions of the then Director of the Bureau of Corrections, a random drug test was conducted at the National Bilibid Prison. Urine samples were collected from thirty-eight inmates and subjected to testing by the medical technologists of a private laboratory in Quezon City. Twenty-one of those samples tested positive.

Confirmatory tests conducted by the National Bureau of Investigation Forensic Chemistry Division confirmed the initial screening results, and the respondents were among the twenty-one inmates who tested positive. Accordingly, the State Prosecutor filed identical informations charging each of them with violation of Section 15, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, alleging that on or about June 30, 2003, without authority of law, they willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously used or introduced into their bodies methamphetamine hydrochloride.

All the respondents pleaded not guilty at arraignment. Later, they filed a Consolidated Motion to Dismiss, arguing that the facts alleged do not constitute a violation of Section 15 because they had never been apprehended or arrested for using dangerous drugs, and because penitentiary inmates are not among the persons enumerated in Section 36, Article III of the law who may be subjected to mandatory or random drug testing. The trial court granted the motion, ruling that the first essential requisite was absent, and dismissed the cases for lack of probable cause.

Issues

• Whether or not the respondents' motion to quash, filed after arraignment, may still be entertained on the ground that the facts charged do not constitute an offense.
• Whether or not the trial court, in granting the motion to quash, may dismiss the case on the ground of lack of probable cause, which was not the ground stated in the motion.
• Whether or not the trial court should have ordered the prosecution to amend the informations instead of dismissing the cases outright.

Applicable Provisions

Section 9, Rule 117 of the Revised Rules of Court provides:

Section 9. Failure to Move to Quash or to Allege Any Ground Therefor. The failure of the accused to assert any ground of a motion to quash before he pleads to the complaint or information, either because he did not file a motion to quash or failed to allege the same in said motion, shall be deemed a waiver of any objections except those based on the grounds provided for in paragraphs (a), (b), (g), and (i) of Section 3 of this Rule.

This provision fixes the timeliness question, because the ground invoked by the respondents falls within the exceptions that survive a plea.

Section 2, Rule 117 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure provides:

Section 2. Form and contents. The motion to quash shall be in writing, signed by the accused or his counsel, and shall distinctly specify its factual and legal grounds. The court shall consider no grounds other than those stated in the motion, except lack of jurisdiction over the offense charged.

This provision confines the trial court to the ground actually pleaded, which was the insufficiency of the facts charged, not lack of probable cause.

Section 4, Rule 117 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure provides:

Section 4. Amendment of the complaint or information. If the motion to quash is based on an alleged defect of the complaint or information which can be cured by amendment, the court shall order that an amendment be made. If it is based on the ground that the facts charged do not constitute an offense, the prosecution shall be given by the court an opportunity to correct the defect by amendment. The motion shall be granted if the prosecution fails to make the amendment, or the complaint or information still suffers from the same defect despite the amendment.

This is the decisive provision, because it commands an opportunity to amend before any dismissal on this ground.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that although the motion was filed after arraignment, the ground relied upon, that the facts charged do not constitute an offense, is one of the exceptions in Section 9, Rule 117, so the timeliness of the filing is inconsequential.

On the second issue, the Court held that the trial court went beyond its authority. Under Section 2, Rule 117, the court shall consider no ground other than those stated in the motion, except lack of jurisdiction over the offense charged. The respondents claimed only that the facts alleged do not constitute an offense, yet the trial court dismissed on lack of probable cause. The Court distinguished the executive determination of probable cause, which belongs to the prosecutor and concerns whether an information should be filed, from the judicial determination, which belongs to the judge and concerns only whether a warrant of arrest should issue. By proceeding with the arraignment, the trial court had already found probable cause, and its duty thereafter was limited to assessing whether the material averments are sufficient to hold the respondents for trial.

On the third issue, the Court held that the trial court should have denied the motion and given the prosecution an opportunity to amend the informations, or allowed the prosecution to present its evidence and await a demurrer to evidence. The Court stressed that defects of this kind are curable by amendment, and that the Court of Appeals itself admitted the trial court erred, yet still affirmed on the speculative conclusion that no amendment could cure the defect. That conclusion was premature, and by foreclosing amendment and the presentation of evidence, both lower courts effectively curtailed the State's right to due process.

Doctrine

First, a motion to quash based on the ground that the facts charged do not constitute an offense may be filed even after arraignment, because that ground is among the exceptions to the waiver rule in Section 9, Rule 117.

Second, the trial court in a motion to quash shall consider no ground other than those stated in the motion, except lack of jurisdiction over the offense charged; it cannot dismiss on lack of probable cause when that was not the ground pleaded.

Third, the executive determination of probable cause belongs to the prosecutor, while the judicial determination is made by the judge solely to decide whether a warrant of arrest should issue; the judge does not sit as an appellate court over the prosecutor.

Fourth, when the defect in the information is curable by amendment, the court must order the amendment and give the prosecution that opportunity; only if the prosecution fails to amend, or the information still suffers from the same defect, may the motion be granted.

Disposition

The petition was granted; the decision and resolution of the Court of Appeals were reversed and set aside, and the cases were remanded for further proceedings consistent with the ruling.

Remember This

The one line to memorize: if the facts charged do not constitute an offense, the court must give the prosecution an opportunity to amend before dismissing. Examiners use this case on the distinction between executive and judicial probable cause, and on the mandatory opportunity to amend under Section 4, Rule 117.