Case No.

35
Case Title Santiago vs. Vasquez G.R. No. & Date 99289-90, January 27, 1993
Topic Rule 117: Motion to Quash: Grounds
Facts An information was filed against petitioner with the Sandiganbayan for alleged
violation of Section 3(e), Republic Act No. 3019, otherwise known as the Anti-Graft and
Corrupt Practices Act. An order of arrest was issued in said case against herein petitioner.
The petitioner filed an "Urgent Ex-parte Motion for Acceptance of Cash Bail Bond for and
in Behalf of Dr. Miriam Defensor-Santiago". Sandiganbayan issued a resolution
authorizing petitioner to post a cash bond for her provisional liberty without need for her
physical appearance until June 5, 1991 at the latest, unless by that time her condition does
not yet permit her physical appearance before said court. Thereafter, petitioner filed a cash
bond in the amount of P15,000.00, aside from the other legal fees. Sandiganbayan issued
a resolution also setting the arraignment of the accused. Petitioner asked that her cash
bond be cancelled and that she be allowed provisional liberty upon a recognizance. The
Sandiganbayan issued an order deferring: (a) the arraignment of petitioner until further
advice from the Supreme Court; and (b) the consideration of herein petitioner's motion to
cancel her cash bond until further initiative from her through counsel. The SC rendered a
decision dismissing the petition for certiorari and lifting and setting aside the temporary
restraining order previously issued. As a result, the Sandiganbayan issued a hold departure
order against petitioner. Hence, this petition.
Issue Whether the Sandiganbayan acted without or in excess of jurisdiction and with grave
abuse of discretion in issuing the hold departure order considering that it had not acquired
jurisdiction over the person of the petitioner.
Ruling NO. The Court ruled that after the filing of the complaint or information a
warrant for the arrest of the accused is issued by the trial court and the accused either
voluntarily submitted himself to the court or was duly arrested, the court thereby acquires
jurisdiction over the person of the accused. The voluntary appearance of the accused,
whereby the court acquires jurisdiction over his person, is accomplished either by his
pleading to the merits (such as by filing a motion to quash or other pleadings requiring the
exercise of the court's jurisdiction thereover, appearing for arraignment, entering trial) or
by filing bail. On the matter of bail, since the same is intended to obtain the provisional
liberty of the accused, as a rule the same cannot be posted before custody of the accused
has been acquired by the judicial authorities either by his arrest or voluntary surrender.
In the case at bar, petitioner is deemed to have voluntarily submitted herself to the
jurisdiction of respondent court upon the filing of her aforequoted "Urgent Ex-parte
Motion for Acceptance of Cash Bail Bond for and in behalf of Dr. Miriam Defensor-
Santiago" wherein she expressly sought leave "that she be considered as having placed
herself under the jurisdiction of (the Sandiganbayan) for purposes of the required trial and
other proceedings," and categorically prayed "that the bail bond she is posting in the
amount of P15,000.00 be duly accepted" and that by said motion "she be considered as
having placed herself under the custody" of said court.
Case No. 36
Case Title People vs. Go G.R. No. & Date 168539, March 25, 2014
Topic Rule 117: Motion to Quash: Grounds
Facts Respondent was charged before the Sandiganbayan. The latter issued and Order
giving the prosecution a period of ten (10) days from receipt thereof within which to show
cause why this case should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction over the person of the
accused considering that the accused is a private person and the public official Arturo
Enrile, his alleged co-conspirator, is already deceased, and not an accused in this case.
The prosecution complied with the Order contending that the SB has already acquired
jurisdiction over the person of respondent by reason of his voluntary appearance, when he
filed a motion for consolidation and when he posted bail. The prosecution also argued that
the SB has exclusive jurisdiction over respondent's case, even if he is a private person,
because he was alleged to have conspired with a public officer. As a result, respondent
filed a Motion to Quash the Information. SB granted the Motion to Quash and the
Information filed in this case was ordered quashed and dismissed. Hence, this petition.
Issue Whether the court a quo gravely erred when it quashed the information and dismissed
criminal case no. 28090.
Ruling YES. The Court ruled that lack of jurisdiction over the person of the defendant
may be waived either expressly or impliedly. When a defendant voluntarily appears, he is
deemed to have submitted himself to the jurisdiction of the court. Where the appearance is
 by motion for the purpose of objecting to the jurisdiction of the court over the person, it
must be for the sole and separate purpose of objecting to said jurisdiction. If the
appearance is for any other purpose, the defendant is deemed to have submitted himself to
the jurisdiction of the court. Such an appearance gives the court jurisdiction over the
person.
In the instant case, respondent did not make any special appearance to question
the jurisdiction of the SB over his person prior to his posting of bail and filing his Motion
for Consolidation. In fact, his Motion to Quash the Information in Criminal Case No.
28090 only came after the SB issued an Order requiring the prosecution to show cause
why the case should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction over his person.
Case No. 37
Case Title Quisay vs. People G.R. No. & Date
216920, January 13, 2016
(abandoned by Villa-Gomez, 2020)
Topic Rule 117: Motion to Quash: Grounds
Facts The Office of the City Prosecutor of Makati City (OCP-Makati) issued a Pasiya
or Resolution finding probable cause against petitioner for violation of Section 10 of
Republic Act No. (RA) 7610,5 otherwise known as the "Special Protection of Children
Against Abuse Exploitation and Discrimination Act." Consequently, a Pabatid Sakda or
Information was filed before the RTC charging petitioner of such crime. The petitioner
moved for the quashal of the Information against her on the ground of lack of authority of
the person who filed the same before the RTC. The RTC denied petitioner's motion to
quash for lack of merit which was affirmed by the CA. Hence this petition.
Issue Whether the CA correctly held that the RTC did not gravely abuse its discretion in
dismissing petitioner's motion to quash.
Ruling NO. The Court ruled that no complaint or information may be filed or dismissed
by an investigating prosecutor without the prior written authority or approval of the
provincial or city prosecutor or chief state prosecutor or the Ombudsman or his deputy.
In this case, there was no showing that the Pabatid Sakdal or Information was
approved by either the City Prosecutor of Makati or any of the OCP Makati' s division
chiefs or review prosecutors. In conclusion, the CA erred in affirming the RTC's dismissal
of petitioner's motion to quash as the Pabatid Sakdal or Information suffers from an
incurable infirmity - that the officer who filed the same before the RTC had no authority
to do so. Hence, the Pabatid Sakdal must be quashed, resulting in the dismissal of the
criminal case against petitioner.
However, in Villa-Gomez case in 2020, the Court ruled that the rule “no
complaint or information may be filed or dismissed by an investigating prosecutor
without the prior written authority or approval of the provincial or city prosecutor or chief
state prosecutor or the Ombudsman or his deputy” is not Mandatory at all, it can be
Waived! Thus, if an information has no written approval of the Chief Prosecutor or
provincial prosecutor, and you as the counsel to the accused does not question it in a
motion to quash, you waived it by your silence, acquiescence, or failure to raise such
ground during arraignment or before entering a plea.
Case No. 38
Case Title Romualdez vs. Sandiganbayan G.R. No. & Date 152259, July 29, 2004
Topic Rule 117: Motion to Quash: Grounds
Facts An information before the anti-graft court charging the accused with violation of
Section 5, Republic Act No. 3019, as amended. The accused filed his first 'Motion To
Dismiss And To Defer Arraignment' claiming that no valid preliminary investigation was
conducted in the instant case. Subsequently, the petitioner filed his second 'Motion To
Quash And To Defer Arraignment'. The denied the motion for lack of merit. The accused
then filed a 'Motion For Leave To File Motion To Dismiss. The Sandiganbayan admitted
the motion and admitted the attached (third) Motion to Dismiss. It ruled that his right to a
preliminary investigation was not violated, because he had been granted a reinvestigation.
It further held that his right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation was
not trampled upon, either, inasmuch as the Information had set forth the essential elements
of the offense charged. Hence, this petition.
Issue Whether the Sandiganbayan erred and gravely abused its discretion amounting to lack of,
or in excess of jurisdiction in not dismissing and/or quashing Criminal Case No. 13736.
Ruling NO. The Court ruled that while it is fundamental that every element of the offense
must be alleged in the information, matters of evidence as distinguished from the facts
essential to the nature of the offense need not be averred. Whatever facts and
 circumstances must necessarily be alleged are to be determined by reference to the
definition and the essential elements of the specific crimes.
In the instant case, a cursory reading of the Information shows that the elements
of a violation of Section 5 of RA 3019 have been stated sufficiently. Likewise, the
allegations describe the offense committed by petitioner with such particularity as to
enable him to prepare an intelligent defense. Details of the acts he committed are
evidentiary matters that need not be alleged in the Information.
Case No. 39
Case Title People vs. Solar G.R. No. & Date 152259, July 29, 2004
Topic Rule 117: Motion to Quash: Grounds
Facts An Information was filed against Rolando and Mark Kenneth Solar (Mark
Kenneth) for the murder of Joseph Capinig y Mato (Joseph). During the arraignment,
Rolando pleaded not guilty while Mark Kenneth remained at large and hence was not
brought to the RTC's jurisdiction. Pre-trial and trial thereafter ensued. The RTC convicted
Rolando Solar beyond reasonable doubt for the crime of murder. Hence, this petition.
Issue Whether the RTC correctly convicted Rolando of the crime of Murder despite the
insufficiency of the Information to allege the presence of treachery in the commission of
the offense.
Ruling YES. The Court ruled that an information which lacks certain essential
allegations may still sustain a conviction when the accused fails to object to its sufficiency
during the trial, and the deficiency was cured by competent evidence presented therein.
In the present case, Rolando did not question the supposed insufficiency of the
Information filed against him through either a motion to quash or motion for bill of
particulars. He voluntarily entered his plea during the arraignment and proceeded with the
trial. Thus, he is deemed to have waived any of the waivable defects in the Information,
including the supposed lack of particularity in the description of the attendant
circumstances.
Case No. 40
Case Title Aguilar vs. Judge Modesto San Pedro G.R. No. & Date 172716, November 17, 2010
Topic Rule 117: Motion to Quash: Grounds
Facts Following a vehicular collision, petitioner was charged with two separate
offenses: (1) Reckless Imprudence Resulting in Slight Physical Injuries (Criminal Case
No. 82367) for injuries sustained by respondent; and (2) Reckless Imprudence Resulting
in Homicide and Damage to Property (Criminal Case No. 82366) for the death of
respondent Ponce’s husband and damage to the spouses Ponce’s vehicle. Petitioner posted
bail for his temporary release in both cases. The petitioner pleaded guilty to the charge in
Criminal Case No. 82367 and was meted out the penalty of public censure. Invoking this
conviction, petitioner moved to quash the Information in Criminal Case No. 82366 for
placing him in jeopardy of second punishment for the same offense of reckless
imprudence. The MeTC refused quashal, finding no identity of offenses in the two cases.
Hence, the issue.
Issue Whether Criminal Case No. 82366 and Criminal Case No. 82367 do not involve the
"same offense."
Ruling NO. The Court ruled that Reckless Imprudence is a single crime, its consequences
on persons and property are material only to determine the penalty. The doctrine that
reckless imprudence under Article 365 is a single quasi-offense by itself and not merely a
means to commit other crimes such that conviction or acquittal of such quasi-offense bars
subsequent prosecution for the same quasi-offense, regardless of its various resulting acts.
Case No. 41
Case Title Bonsubre, Jr. vs. Yerro G.R. No. & Date 205952, 11 February 2015
Topic Rule 117: Motion to Quash: Provisional Dismissal
Facts Petitioner filed a criminal complaint for estafa against herein respondent. In the
course of the proceedings, the counsel on record, private prosecutor, manifested that there
was an on-going settlement between petitioner and respondents, and that they would file
the necessary motion relative thereto. Although a Compromise Agreement was reached
between petitioner and respondents relative to the civil aspect of the case, the prosecution
failed to furnish the RTC a copy of the same and file the necessary motion as manifested.
As a result, the RTC dismissed the case for failure of the prosecution to comply with the
court’s directive, as well as to take any further step to prosecute the case, in view of the
accused’s constitutional right to speedy trial. Dissatisfied, the petitioner filed a notice of
appeal. The RTC denied due course to the appeal relative to the criminal aspect of the case
 since the dismissal was grounded on the accused’s right to speedy trial, but gave due
course to the notice of appeal with respect to the case’s civil aspect. Hence, this petition.
Issue Whether there was no violation of the respondents’ right to speedy trial as both parties
mutually agreed to provisionally dismiss the case until full settlement of the obligation.
Ruling NO. The Court ruled that a case is provisionally dismissed if the following
requisites concur: (a) The prosecution with the express conformity of the accused, or the
accused, moves for a provisional dismissal (sin perjuicio) of his case; or both the
prosecution and the accused move for its provisional dismissal; (b) The offended party is
notified of the motion for a provisional dismissal of the case; (c) The court issues an
Order granting the motion and dismissing the case provisionally; and (d) The public
prosecutor is served with a copy of the Order of provisional dismissal of the case.
In the case at bar, none of the foregoing requisites were met. While it may appear
that the respondents consented to a provisional dismissal of the case under the
Compromise Agreement, the prosecution neither presented the same for the court’s
approval nor filed the required motion to that effect such that no order was in fact issued
granting the provisional dismissal of the case. Hence, petitioner’s assertion that the
respondents are estopped from invoking their right to speedy trial is without basis.
Case No. 42
Case Title Co vs. New Propserity Plastic Products G.R. No. & Date 183994, 30 June 2014
Topic Rule 117: Motion to Quash: Provisional Dismissal
Facts Respondent New Prosperity Plastic Products is the private complainant in
Criminal Case Nos. 206655-59, 206661-77 and 209634 for Violation of Batas Pambansa
(B.P.) Bilang 22 filed against petitioner William Co. In the absence of Uy and the private
counsel, the cases were provisionally dismissed in open court pursuant to Section 8, Rule
117 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure (Rules). Uy received a copy of Order and
her counsel-of-record a day after. Thereafter, Uy, through counsel, filed a Motion to
Revive the Criminal Cases. Hon. Belen B. Ortiz, then Presiding Judge of the MeTC,
granted the motion and denied Co’s motion for reconsideration. When Co moved for
recusation, Judge Ortiz inhibited herself from handling the criminal cases. The cases
were, thereafter, raffled to the MeTC Branch 50 of Caloocan City. Co filed a petition for
certiorari and prohibition with prayer for the issuance of a temporary restraining order
(TRO)/writ of preliminary injunction (WPI) before the RTC of Caloocan City challenging
the revival of the criminal cases. It was, however, dismissed for lack of merit. Co’s motion
for reconsideration was, subsequently, denied. Hence, this petition.
Issue Whether the cases were only provisionally dismissed assuming por gratia argumenti.
Ruling NO. The Court ruled that although the second paragraph of the new rule states
that the order of dismissal shall become permanent one year after the issuance thereof
without the case having been revived, the provision should be construed to mean that the
order of dismissal shall become permanent one year after service of the order of dismissal
on the public prosecutor who has control of the prosecution without the criminal case
having been revived. The public prosecutor cannot be expected to comply with the
timeline unless he is served with a copy of the order of dismissal.
Case No. 43
Case Title Los Baños vs. Pedro G.R. No. & Date 173588, 22 April 2009
Topic Rule 117: Motion to Quash: Provisional Dismissal
Facts Pedro was charged in court for carrying a loaded firearm without the required
written authorization from the Commission on Elections (Comelec) a day before the
national and local elections. Pedro filed a Motion for Preliminary Investigation, which the
RTC granted.7 The preliminary investigation, however, did not materialize. Instead, Pedro
filed with the RTC a Motion to Quash, arguing that the Information "contains averments
which, if true, would constitute a legal excuse or justification and/or that the facts charged
do not constitute an offense." The RTC quashed the Information and ordered the police
and the prosecutors to return the seized articles to Pedro. The petitioner, private
prosecutor Ariel Los Baños (Los Baños), representing the checkpoint team, moved to
reopen the case which the RTC granted for further proceedings. Hence, this petition.
Issue Whether Section 8, Rule 117 applies to the reopening of the case.
Ruling NO. The Court ruled that quashal and provisional dismissal are different concepts
whose respective rules refer to different situations that should not be confused with one
another. If the problem relates to an intrinsic or extrinsic deficiency of the complaint or
information, as shown on its face, the remedy is a motion to quash under the terms of
Section 3, Rule 117. All other reasons for seeking the dismissal of the complaint or
 information, before arraignment and under the circumstances outlined in Section 8, fall
under provisional dismissal.
Thus, Section 8, Rule 117 does not apply to the reopening of the case that the
RTC ordered and which the CA reversed; the reversal of the CA’s order is legally proper.
Case No. 44
Case Title Torres vs. Aguinaldo G.R. No. & Date 164268, June 28, 2005
Topic Rule 117: Motion to Quash: Provisional Dismissal
Facts Respondent-spouses Edgardo and Nelia Aguinaldo filed a complaint against
petitioner Torres for falsification of public document. Torres moved for reconsideration
but was denied. On appeal, the Secretary of Justice reversed the findings of the
investigating prosecutor and ordered the withdrawal of the information. The motion for
reconsideration filed by Aguinaldo was denied. A Motion to Withdraw Information was
filed which the MTC granted. It should be noted that petitioner has not been arraigned.
Meanwhile, Aguinaldo filed before the Court of Appeals a petition for certiorari which
was granted. Torres’ motion for reconsideration was denied. Hence, this petition.
Issue Whether the rule on provisional dismissal under Section 8, Rule 117 applies.
Ruling NO. The Court ruled that a motion to withdraw information differs from a motion
to dismiss. While both put an end to an action filed in court, their legal effect varies. The
order granting the withdrawal of the information attains finality after fifteen (15) days
from receipt thereof, without prejudice to the re-filing of the information upon
reinvestigation. On the other hand, the order granting a motion to dismiss becomes final
fifteen (15) days after receipt thereof, with prejudice to the re-filing of the same case once
such order achieves finality.
In the case at bar, a motion to withdraw information was filed and not a motion to
dismiss.