"x x x.
And, lastly, in opting to still assail the denial of the motion to quash by the MTC by bringing the special civil action for certiorariin the RTC, the petitioners deliberately disregarded the fundamental conditions for initiating the special civil action for certiorari. These conditions were, firstly, the petitioners must show thatthe respondent trial court lacked jurisdiction or exceeded it, or gravely abused its discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction; and,secondly, because the denial was interlocutory, they must show that there was no plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.32
The petitioners’ disregard of the fundamental conditions precluded the success of their recourse. To start with, the petitioners did not show that the MTC had no jurisdiction, or exceeded its jurisdiction in denying the motion to quash, or gravely abused its discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in its denial. That showing was the door that would have opened the way to their success with the recourse. Yet, the door remained unopened to them because the denial by the MTC of the motion to quash was procedurally and substantively correct because the duration of the physical incapacity or medical attendance should be dealt with only during the trial on the merits, not at the early stage of dealing with and resolving the motion to quash. As to the second condition, the fact that the denial was interlocutory, not a final order, signified that the MTC did not yet completely terminate its proceedings in the criminal cases. The proper recourse of the petitioners was to enter their pleas as the accused, go to trial in the MTC, and should the decision of the MTC be adverse to them in the end, reiterate the issue on their appeal from the judgment and assign as error the unwarranted denial of their motion to quash.33 Certiorari was not available to them in the RTC because they had an appeal, or another plain, speedy or adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.
x x x."
See:
G.R. No. 166414, October 22, 2014
GODOFREDO ENRILE AND DR. FREDERICK ENRILE, Petitioners,
vs. HON. DANILO A. MANALASTAS (AS PRESIDING JUDGE, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF MALOLOS BULACAN, BR. VII), HON. ERANIO G. CEDILLO, SR., (AS PRESIDING JUDGE, MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT OF MEYCAUAYAN, BULACAN, BR.1) AND PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondents.
vs. HON. DANILO A. MANALASTAS (AS PRESIDING JUDGE, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF MALOLOS BULACAN, BR. VII), HON. ERANIO G. CEDILLO, SR., (AS PRESIDING JUDGE, MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT OF MEYCAUAYAN, BULACAN, BR.1) AND PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondents.
