Motion to Quash (RULE 117) | CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

OVERVIEW OF MOTION TO QUASH UNDER RULE 117 OF THE 2000 REVISED RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE (PHILIPPINES)

A Motion to Quash is a critical defensive pleading available to an accused in a criminal case to challenge the validity of the Complaint or Information before entering a plea. It is governed primarily by Rule 117 of the 2000 Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure. Below is a thorough, structured discussion covering all essential aspects, supplemented by relevant legal principles and jurisprudence:

1. CONCEPT AND NATURE

  • Definition
    A Motion to Quash is a formal request by the accused for the court to dismiss (or “quash”) the criminal Complaint or Information on grounds specified by law. It is filed before the accused enters a plea. Once granted, it prevents the case from proceeding to trial, unless the court gives the prosecution an opportunity to cure the defect (when allowed by the rules).

  • Purpose

    • To raise jurisdictional defects or other fatal infirmities in the Complaint or Information.
    • To protect the accused from the expense, anxiety, and delay of an invalid or deficient prosecution.
    • To ensure that the charging document (Complaint or Information) fully comports with legal requirements and due process.

2. TIME TO FILE

  • Section 1, Rule 117:
    A Motion to Quash must be made before entering a plea. If the accused fails to file it within the prescribed period and proceeds to arraignment and plea, the accused is generally considered to have waived the objections that could have been raised by such motion, except for certain non-waivable grounds (e.g., lack of jurisdiction, failure of the facts alleged to constitute an offense).

  • Exceptions / Non-Waivable Grounds
    Even if not raised at the earliest opportunity, certain defects can be raised at any stage of the proceedings, namely:

    1. Lack of jurisdiction over the offense charged;
    2. Failure of the facts charged to constitute an offense;
    3. Extinguishment of the criminal action or penalty;
    4. Double jeopardy.

3. GROUNDS FOR A MOTION TO QUASH

Under Section 3, Rule 117, the accused may move to quash the Complaint or Information on any of the following grounds:

  1. Facts Charged Do Not Constitute an Offense

    • If the allegations in the Complaint or Information, even if hypothetically admitted, do not make out a criminal offense.

  2. Court Lacks Jurisdiction Over the Offense

    • The offense is not within the trial court’s subject matter jurisdiction (e.g., Sandiganbayan vs. regular courts, Metropolitan Trial Courts vs. Regional Trial Courts).

  3. Court Lacks Jurisdiction Over the Person of the Accused

    • This typically arises when the accused has not been validly arrested or placed under custody of the law, although in practice, courts often acquire jurisdiction once the accused voluntarily submits to the court or is validly arrested.

  4. Accused Does Not Have Legal Capacity to Be Held to Answer

    • For instance, if the accused is below the age of criminal responsibility or otherwise exempt by law.

  5. More than One Offense Charged (Multiplicity)

    • Except in cases where the law or rules permit a single Complaint or Information to contain multiple offenses (e.g., continuous offenses, special laws allowing joinder).

  6. Criminal Action or Liability Has Been Extinguished

    • Situations where prescription has set in, or there is an amnesty, pardon, or other legal reason that has extinguished criminal liability.

  7. It Contains Allegations Which, if True, Would Constitute a Legal Excuse or Justification

    • For example, a clear statement in the Information that the act was done in self-defense, or any matter that would exempt the accused from criminal liability.

  8. Double Jeopardy

    • If the accused has been previously convicted or acquitted or the case dismissed or terminated without the express consent of the accused, on the same facts or offense.

  9. Lack of Authority of the Officer Who Filed the Information

    • E.g., an Information filed by someone not duly empowered by law or lacking proper authority from the prosecutorial hierarchy.

4. FORM AND CONTENT OF A MOTION TO QUASH

  • Written Motion
    A Motion to Quash must generally be in writing, signed by counsel (or the accused, if unrepresented), stating the ground or grounds relied upon, and specifying the defect complained of.

  • Notice and Hearing

    • It must comply with the requirement of notice and hearing, giving the prosecution an opportunity to be heard.
    • The prosecution may oppose or file a written comment/traverse.

  • Evidence
    While usually resolved on the face of the Complaint or Information (i.e., on its four corners), in certain grounds (such as lack of jurisdiction or prescription), the court may consider external evidence to determine if the ground is meritorious.

5. EFFECTS OF A GRANT OR DENIAL OF THE MOTION

5.1 Grant of the Motion

  • General Rule: If the motion is granted, the criminal Complaint or Information is dismissed.
  • Possibility of Amendment or Refiling:
    1. Defect Remediable by Amendment
      • If the defect is something that can be cured by amending the Information (e.g., a simple deficiency in form), the court may allow the prosecution to amend or to refile the case.
    2. Double Jeopardy Implications
      • If the dismissal amounts to an acquittal or is based on any ground that would bar further prosecution (e.g., prescription, double jeopardy), the case cannot be revived.

5.2 Denial of the Motion

  • Plea and Trial: If the court denies the motion to quash, the accused must immediately enter a plea. If the accused refuses to plead, the court will enter a plea of not guilty on their behalf, and the case proceeds to trial.
  • No Immediate Appeal:
    • As a rule, interlocutory orders (such as an order denying a motion to quash) are not appealable immediately. The accused must usually wait until the judgment on the merits is rendered to raise the denial of the motion to quash as an error on appeal.
    • Exception: If a denial clearly violates double jeopardy or some other constitutional right, an extraordinary remedy (e.g., certiorari under Rule 65) might be invoked, but this is rare and requires a showing of grave abuse of discretion.

6. EFFECT OF WAIVER

  • Waivable Grounds
    If the accused fails to invoke grounds such as lack of authority of the officer to file the information, or even the ground of multiplicity of offense, these are generally deemed waived if not raised before entering a plea.
  • Non-Waivable Grounds
    The grounds such as lack of jurisdiction over the offense, failure of the Information to charge an offense, extinction of criminal liability, or double jeopardy are deemed so fundamental that they can be raised even after the accused enters a plea or at any stage of the proceedings (and even on appeal).

7. REMEDIES AFTER A MOTION TO QUASH

  1. If Granted

    • The prosecution might refile the case or amend the Information, depending on the ground for quashal.
    • If the ground for quashal is double jeopardy, extinction of criminal liability, or prescription, the case cannot be refiled.

  2. If Denied

    • The accused must enter a plea, proceed to trial, and raise the denial as an error on appeal after judgment is rendered.
    • In exceptional instances (e.g., grave abuse of discretion by the court), the accused may explore an extraordinary remedy (Certiorari under Rule 65).

8. LEGAL ETHICS IMPLICATIONS

  • Duty of Candor
    Defense counsel must ensure that any ground raised is made in good faith and is not designed to merely delay proceedings. Lawyers are officers of the court and must not file frivolous motions.
  • Zealous Representation
    Counsel must diligently protect the client’s rights by timely raising all possible and valid grounds for a Motion to Quash, avoiding waiver.
  • Professional Responsibility
    An attorney must ensure compliance with the rules on form, notice, and hearing. Failure to observe these can lead to adverse rulings or even disciplinary action for neglect.

9. ILLUSTRATIVE JURISPRUDENCE

  • Cerbo v. Sandiganbayan (G.R. No. 165101, September 29, 2004) – Emphasizes that in deciding a motion to quash on the ground that the facts do not constitute an offense, courts look at the allegations in the Information and do not go beyond its face.
  • Roberto v. People (G.R. No. 185242, July 5, 2010) – Reiterates that lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter is never waived and can be raised at any stage.
  • People v. Alejo (G.R. No. 181539, August 14, 2009) – Clarifies that denial of a motion to quash is merely interlocutory, hence not appealable except by special action for grave abuse of discretion.

10. PRACTICAL TIPS IN DRAFTING A MOTION TO QUASH

  1. Identify Applicable Ground(s) Clearly
    • Cite the specific provision of Section 3, Rule 117 under which the motion is premised.
  2. Attach Supporting Evidence (If Necessary)
    • Jurisdictional issues or prescription may require documentary or record evidence.
  3. Argue Hypothetical Admission
    • When claiming that the Information does not charge an offense, assume the facts alleged are true and show that they still do not constitute a crime.
  4. Avoid Overreliance on Dilatory Grounds
    • Filings perceived as purely dilatory can adversely affect your client’s standing and credibility before the court.
  5. Observe Deadlines
    • Remember to file before plea, unless you are invoking a non-waivable ground.

11. KEY TAKEAWAYS

  • A Motion to Quash is a preliminary remedy that should be used strategically and timely to avoid waiving certain objections.
  • Grounds are set out explicitly in Rule 117, Section 3, and not all grounds can be waived.
  • Once granted, the effect can range from allowing amendment/refiling to permanently barring prosecution, depending on the nature of the defect.
  • Denial is generally an interlocutory order, and the accused should proceed to trial and appeal later, except in extraordinary cases of grave abuse of discretion.
  • Legal ethics mandates counsel to file such motions in good faith, focusing on meritorious arguments rather than mere delay tactics.

FINAL WORD

Rule 117 on Motions to Quash is a powerful procedural tool ensuring that an accused’s fundamental rights—particularly jurisdictional and due process requirements—are safeguarded. Properly employed, it can terminate baseless prosecutions early or compel the State to cure defects. Conversely, an untimely or improper motion can lead to waiver of certain defenses. Mastery of this remedy is essential for effective criminal defense in the Philippine legal system.

Disclaimer: This content is not legal advice and may involve AI assistance. Information may be inaccurate.

Privacy Policy

Terms of Use

Lawyer Login

 
 
Privacy Policy         Terms of Use         Lawyer Login