Remedy from the Denial of a Motion to Quash
A preliminary consideration in this case relates to the propriety of the chosen legal remedies availed of by the petitioner in the lower courts to question the denial of his motion to quash. In the usual course of procedure, a denial of a motion to quash filed by the accused results in the continuation of the trial and the determination of the guilt or innocence of the accused. If a judgment of conviction is rendered and the lower court’s decision of conviction is appealed, the accused can then raise the denial of his motion to quash not only as an error committed by the trial court but as an added ground to overturn the latter’s ruling.
In this case, the petitioner did not proceed to trial but opted to immediately question the denial of his motion to quash via a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court.
As a rule, the denial of a motion to quash is an interlocutory order and is not appealable; an appeal from an interlocutory order is not allowed under Section 1(b), Rule 41 of the Rules of Court. Neither can it be a proper subject of a petition for certiorari which can be used only in the absence of an appeal or any other adequate, plain and speedy remedy.[11] The plain and speedy remedy upon denial of an interlocutory order is to proceed to trial as discussed above.
Thus, a direct resort to a special civil action for certiorari is an exception rather than the general rule, and is a recourse that must be firmly grounded on compelling reasons. In past cases, we have cited the interest of a "more enlightened and substantial justice";[12] the promotion of public welfare and public policy;[13] cases that "have attracted nationwide attention, making it essential to proceed with dispatch in the consideration thereof";[14] or judgments on order attended by grave abuse of discretion, as compelling reasons to justify a petition for certiorari.[15]
In grave abuse of discretion cases, certiorari is appropriate if the petitioner can establish that the lower court issued the judgment or order without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion, and the remedy of appeal would not afford adequate and expeditious relief. The petitioner carries the burden of showing that the attendant facts and circumstances fall within any of the cited instances.
At the RTC
We find no compelling reason to justify a resort to a petition forcertiorari against the orders of the MeTC as the petitioner failed to show that the factual circumstances of his case fall under any of the above exceptional circumstances. The MeTC in fact did not commit any grave abuse of discretion as its denial of the motion to quash was consistent with the existing rules and applicable jurisprudence. The ground used by the petitioner in his motion to quash (i.e., that his co-conspirator had been convicted of an offense lesser than the crime of robbery) is not among the exclusive grounds enumerated under Section 3, Rule 117 of the 2000 Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure that warrant the quashal of a criminal information.[16]
This ground, too, is an extraneous matter that has no bearing and is irrelevant to the validity of the criminal information filed against the accused; the designated purpose of a motion to quash is to assail the validity of the criminal information (or criminal complaint) for defects or defenses apparent on the face of the information.[17] A facial examination of the criminal information against the petitioner shows it to be valid and regular on its face considering its conformity with the guidelines under Section 6, Rule 110 of the 2000 Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure. This section provides:
SEC. 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.
Under the circumstances, the criminal information is sufficient in form and substance for it states: (a) the name of the petitioner as the accused; (b) the offense of robbery as the designated offense committed; (c) the manner on how the offense of robbery was committed and the petitioner’s participation were alleged with particularity; and (d) the date and the place of the commission of the robbery were also stated therein. Thus, as the RTC correctly ruled, the petitioner can be properly tried under the allegations of the information.
The CA Resolution
To proceed to the merits of the CA resolution that is the main subject of this review, we find no reversible error in the CA’s dismissal of the petitioner’s petition for certiorari assailing the RTC’s order; the petition was both procedurally and substantively infirm.
We find that the petition for certiorari filed with the CA was a wrong legal remedy to question the RTC order. The petition for certiorari filed by the petitioner before the RTC was an original action whose resulting decision is a final order that completely disposed of the petition;[18] the assailed CA resolution was in all respect a ruling on the propriety of the petition forcertiorari filed with the RTC. Hence, the petitioner’s remedy was to appeal the RTC order to the CA pursuant to Section 2, Rule 41 of the Rules of Court:
SEC. 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.
Given the plain, speedy and adequate remedy of appeal, the petitioner cannot avail of the remedy of certiorari.[19]
Even on the substantive aspect, the petition for certiorari filed with the CA must fail considering the petitioner’s failure to show any justifiable reason for his chosen mode of review. In addition, we find no grave abuse of discretion committed by the RTC since it was merely affirming a correct ruling of denial by the MeTC of the petitioner’s motion to quash.
As a final word, we cannot allow a party to delay litigation by filing a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 based on scant allegations of grave abuse of discretion.[20] We repeat that it is only in the presence of extraordinary circumstances where a resort to a petition for certiorari is proper.[21] Under the circumstances, the petitioner’s recourses cannot but be dilatory moves that deserve sanction from this Court.
