Motion to Quash RULE 117

Provisional dismissal | Motion to Quash (RULE 117) | CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

PROVISIONAL DISMISSAL UNDER RULE 117 OF THE PHILIPPINE RULES OF COURT
(Focus: Section 8, Rule 117 — Motion to Quash, Provisional Dismissal of Criminal Actions)

1. Concept and Definition

A provisional dismissal is a court order dismissing a criminal case without final prejudice to the refiling or revival of the same. It differs from a final or permanent dismissal (with prejudice) in that it does not trigger double jeopardy if properly obtained. Its primary purpose is to afford both the prosecution and the defense, under certain conditions, a temporary remedy to address issues such as unavailability of witnesses, incomplete evidence, or other circumstances hindering a speedy trial.

Legal basis:

  • Section 8, Rule 117 of the Rules of Court (as amended)
  • Relevant jurisprudence, e.g., People v. Lacson, 400 SCRA 187 (2003); People v. Maturan, 753 SCRA 436 (2015)

2. Requisites of a Valid Provisional Dismissal

For a dismissal to be considered provisionally valid under Section 8, Rule 117, the following requirements must be complied with:

  1. Express consent of the accused

    • The accused must expressly agree to the provisional dismissal. Silence or mere absence of objection in open court does not automatically signify express consent. The court, through the records (e.g., transcripts), must see that the accused or defense counsel explicitly agreed to or moved for the provisional dismissal.

  2. Notice to the offended party (or the prosecution in public crimes, or the private complainant in private crimes)

    • There should be proof that the offended party (private complainant) was notified of the motion or move for provisional dismissal. The offended party must be given the opportunity to be heard, especially when civil liability could be affected.
    • If the offended party is the State (as is true in most criminal cases), the prosecutor must also be duly notified and must give consent or at least must not object.

  3. Approval by the court

    • Even if both the prosecution and the defense agree to a provisional dismissal, it must be the court’s prerogative to approve or grant it. Courts will generally consider factors such as the possibility of prejudice to the State, the reasonableness of granting additional time for evidence gathering, or the presence of other compelling reasons like witness unavailability.

  4. Hearing on the motion (or at least an opportunity to be heard)

    • There should be a proceeding in which the motion or request for provisional dismissal is considered. This ensures compliance with procedural due process requirements.

The net effect: When all these requisites are met, the dismissal is properly considered “provisional.” It will not immediately trigger the constitutional principle of double jeopardy, provided that the prosecution or the offended party moves to revive the case within the time limits specified by law.

3. Effect of Provisional Dismissal on Double Jeopardy

Double jeopardy attaches when:

  1. A valid complaint or information is filed.
  2. The court of competent jurisdiction has validly arraigned the accused.
  3. The accused entered a plea.
  4. The accused was acquitted, convicted, or the case was dismissed without his/her express consent.

A provisional dismissal, when properly obtained (i.e., with the express consent of the accused and notice to the offended party, and before any final judgment on the merits), typically does not result in double jeopardy. Because the dismissal is “provisional,” the accused agrees that the case can be revived within the prescribed period; hence, jeopardy does not attach in the same manner as with a dismissal on the merits or an acquittal.

However, if the prosecution fails to comply with the time-bar provisions (see below) after a valid provisional dismissal, any subsequent refiling may be barred on grounds akin to double jeopardy or a violation of the right to speedy disposition of cases. Essentially, the State loses its right to further prosecute if it allows the time-bar to lapse.

4. Time-Bar Provisions: Revival and Limitation Periods

Rule 117, Section 8 (in conjunction with jurisprudence) provides specific time periods within which the prosecution must move to revive the criminal case after a provisional dismissal:

  1. One (1) year from the issuance of the order of provisional dismissal, if the offense charged is punishable by imprisonment not exceeding six (6) years or a fine only.
  2. Two (2) years from the issuance of the order of provisional dismissal, if the offense charged is punishable by imprisonment of more than six (6) years.

If the prosecution (or the offended party, as applicable) fails to move for revival of the case within the prescribed period, the provisional dismissal ripens into a permanent dismissal (i.e., it becomes a bar to further prosecution). At that point, if the State attempts to refile the same charges, the accused can invoke double jeopardy or the violation of the right to speedy trial/speedy disposition of cases.

5. Comparison with Other Types of Dismissals

  1. Dismissal with Prejudice (or Acquittal)

    • Conclusively terminates the case on the merits and absolutely bars refiling under double jeopardy principles.
    • No express consent of the accused is necessary (and, in fact, the accused typically opposes any reversal or reopening once there is a dismissal/acquittal).

  2. Dismissal without Prejudice (Simple Dismissal)

    • Does not necessarily require compliance with Section 8, Rule 117 requisites.
    • May occur when the dismissal is for a procedural defect (e.g., a formal defect in the information, lack of probable cause, or other reasons).
    • Whether the case can be revived depends on the specific defect or condition leading to the dismissal.

  3. Provisional Dismissal

    • Requires express consent of the accused and notice to the offended party.
    • The prosecution may refile or revive within one (1) year or two (2) years, depending on the imposable penalty, provided the accused was not placed in jeopardy and the offended party was notified.
    • If the prosecution does not act within the time-bar, the provisional dismissal ripens into one with prejudice.

6. Practical and Policy Considerations

  1. Speedy Trial and Efficient Docket Management

    • Provisional dismissals are often used to avoid prolonged detention of an accused or to unclog court dockets when evidence is not yet ready.
    • It balances the rights of the accused (to speedy trial) and the interests of the prosecution (to gather evidence without forcing a hasty trial that may fail).

  2. Risks to the Accused

    • Even with provisional dismissal, the accused must remain aware that the case may be reinstated.
    • Expressly consenting to a provisional dismissal effectively waives the immediate invocation of double jeopardy.
    • The accused’s counsel should closely monitor the time-bar period and ensure that no revival occurs beyond that period.

  3. Risks to the Prosecution

    • Once a case is provisionally dismissed, the clock starts for the prosecution. Failure to reinstate within the period leads to a potential permanent bar.
    • The prosecution must ensure that essential witnesses, documentary evidence, and other requirements are secured within the one- or two-year timeframe.

  4. Court Discretion

    • The court has discretion whether to grant or deny a request for provisional dismissal. If the court believes the grounds are insufficient, it may proceed with trial or impose another remedy (e.g., reset hearings, issue subpoenas, etc.).
    • The judge will typically require a showing of valid reasons—such as unavailability of an indispensable witness, ongoing forensic analysis, or other justifiable grounds—for seeking provisional dismissal.

7. Selected Jurisprudential Guidelines

  1. People v. Lacson (G.R. No. 149453, April 1, 2003)

    • Reiterated that a provisional dismissal is valid only if the accused expressly consents and the offended party is notified.
    • Clarified the time-bar application and the concept of double jeopardy in relation to provisional dismissals.

  2. People v. Maturan (G.R. No. 188208, October 21, 2015)

    • Emphasized the necessity for explicit compliance with Rule 117, Section 8.
    • Stressed that silence or lack of objection from the accused is not tantamount to express consent.

  3. Cudia v. CA

    • While not solely about provisional dismissal, it underscores the importance of strict compliance with procedural safeguards in criminal proceedings, highlighting the constitutional right to a speedy trial.

8. Drafting a Motion for Provisional Dismissal: Key Points

In practice, if you are the defense counsel or the prosecutor seeking a provisional dismissal, your motion should:

  1. State specific grounds justifying the need for provisional dismissal (e.g., critical witness is abroad, expert evidence pending, etc.).
  2. Manifest express consent of the accused (through the accused’s signature or clear statement in open court).
  3. Show proof of notice to the offended party or private complainant (e.g., attach proof of service or mention hearing dates where the complainant/prosecution was present).
  4. Pray for the provisional dismissal pursuant to Section 8, Rule 117 and for the inclusion in the order that it is “provisional,” subject to revival within the statutory period.
  5. Be signed by the relevant parties, especially defense counsel and with the accused’s conformity (if you represent the defense), or by the prosecutor with the accused’s conformity (if the prosecution and defense have a joint motion).

9. Summary of Key Takeaways

  • Provisional dismissal is not tantamount to an acquittal or final dismissal; it is a temporary cessation of proceedings.
  • It requires: (a) express consent of the accused, (b) notice to the offended party, (c) court approval, and (d) compliance with the formalities of a hearing.
  • The prosecution (or offended party) must revive the case within one year (if the imposable penalty ≤ 6 years) or two years (if > 6 years).
  • If no revival occurs within the time-bar, the dismissal ripens into a permanent bar against further prosecution for the same offense.
  • Properly employed, provisional dismissal balances the right to a speedy trial (and prevents indefinite or vexatious prosecutions) with the State’s interest in eventually prosecuting the alleged offense if and when the necessary evidence becomes available.

In essence, Section 8, Rule 117 on provisional dismissal is a procedural mechanism allowing a criminal case to be set aside temporarily under carefully delineated conditions, preserving the interests of both the accused (speedy disposition) and the prosecution (fair opportunity to gather and present evidence), while ensuring that the offended party’s rights are not disregarded. Once the conditions and timelines are strictly followed, neither the accused’s constitutional rights nor the State’s prosecutorial prerogatives are unjustly curtailed.

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

Double jeopardy | Motion to Quash (RULE 117) | CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

Below is a comprehensive discussion of the concept of double jeopardy under Philippine criminal procedure, with particular focus on Rule 117 of the Rules of Court (on motions to quash), relevant constitutional and statutory provisions, and notable jurisprudential rulings. I will endeavor to be as meticulous as possible, adhering to the perspective of Philippine law.

I. CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY BASIS

  1. 1987 Constitution, Article III (Bill of Rights), Section 21

    “No person shall be twice put in jeopardy of punishment for the same offense. If an act is punished by a law and an ordinance, conviction or acquittal under either shall bar prosecution for the same act.”

  2. Rule 117 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure

    • Particularly Section 3(f) of Rule 117 provides that one of the grounds for a motion to quash is:

      “That the defendant has been previously convicted or acquitted of the offense charged, or the case against him was dismissed or otherwise terminated without his express consent.”

    • This codifies the constitutional right against double jeopardy, laying down a procedural mechanism for its invocation before trial.

II. ELEMENTS OF DOUBLE JEOPARDY

For double jeopardy to attach, all the following requisites must be present:

  1. A valid complaint or information

    • The complaint or information must be sufficient in form and substance to sustain a conviction (i.e., it must state the facts and the law violated so as to inform the accused of the nature and cause of accusation).

  2. Jurisdiction of the court

    • The court where the first case was tried must be a court of competent jurisdiction over the offense charged and over the person of the accused.

  3. Arraignment and plea

    • The accused must have been validly arraigned in the first proceeding and must have entered a valid plea (whether guilty or not guilty).
    • Without arraignment, the accused is not considered “in jeopardy.”

  4. Acquittal, conviction, or dismissal/termination without express consent

    • The case must have been resolved by (a) an acquittal, (b) a conviction, or (c) a dismissal or termination of the case without the express consent of the accused.
    • A dismissal on the merits or one that is tantamount to an acquittal can trigger double jeopardy protections.
    • If the dismissal was upon the motion or with the express consent of the accused, double jeopardy generally will not attach, unless such dismissal is based on insufficiency of the evidence or results in an acquittal on the merits.

Note: All four elements must concur for the protection against double jeopardy to apply.

III. APPLICATION: MOTION TO QUASH (RULE 117)

A. Ground Under Section 3(f)

A motion to quash may be filed before entering a plea, relying on the ground that the accused has been “previously convicted or acquitted of the offense charged” or that the previous case was “dismissed or otherwise terminated without his express consent.” The reasoning is that no person can be put on trial again for the same offense once jeopardy has attached and concluded.

B. Timing of the Motion to Quash

  • Before arraignment: If the accused discovers that the new charge is exactly the same or is an offense that is necessarily included in the offense for which he or she has already been convicted/acquitted/dismissed, the proper remedy is to file a motion to quash on the ground of double jeopardy before pleading.
  • Exception: Rule 117, Section 9 allows certain defenses (including double jeopardy) to be raised even after entering a plea, if it appears from the record that the court has no jurisdiction over the offense charged, or if it appears that the offense charged is barred by the statute of limitations or by double jeopardy.

IV. SCOPE AND LIMITATIONS

A. Same Offense or Necessarily Included Offense

The constitutional guarantee against double jeopardy applies if the second prosecution is for:

  1. The same offense; or
  2. Any offense that necessarily includes or is necessarily included in the offense charged in the first information.

Under Section 7, Rule 117:

“When an accused has been convicted or acquitted, or the case against him was dismissed or otherwise terminated without his express consent by a court of competent jurisdiction, upon a valid complaint or information… he shall not again be prosecuted for the same offense or any offense which necessarily includes or is necessarily included in the offense charged.”

“Necessarily includes or is necessarily included” means:

  • If in proving the offense charged, the other offense is likewise proven, the latter is necessarily included. Thus, an acquittal or conviction for theft bars prosecution for robbery with violence against or intimidation of persons if the facts needed to prove the second offense were already comprehensively covered by the first prosecution (or vice versa).

B. Distinguishing Different Offenses

If the second charge involves a different offense and requires proof of additional or different elements not present in the first offense, double jeopardy will not apply.

  • The test often used is the “same evidence test” and the “identity of offenses test.” Under the same evidence test, if the evidence required to support a conviction for the second offense would have been sufficient to convict the accused of the first offense, the two offenses are identical and double jeopardy will apply.

C. Dismissal with Express Consent of the Accused

The principle is that if the accused seeks or expressly consents to a dismissal before the prosecution rests its case (e.g., moving to dismiss on a ground other than insufficiency of evidence), it will generally not be a basis for double jeopardy.

  • Exception: If the dismissal is based on the violation of the accused’s constitutional right (e.g., violation of the right to speedy trial) or the failure of the prosecution to prosecute (lack of evidence) leading to an acquittal on the merits, double jeopardy may attach despite the accused’s apparent consent.

D. Remedy When Motion to Quash Is Denied

If the trial court denies a motion to quash on the ground of double jeopardy, the usual immediate remedy is to:

  1. File a motion for reconsideration or certiorari under Rule 65, if there is a claim of grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.
  2. Proceed to trial and if convicted, raise the issue on appeal.

V. NOTABLE DOCTRINES AND JURISPRUDENCE

  1. People v. Ylagan

    • Reiterates that double jeopardy attaches once an accused is arraigned under a valid information, the court has jurisdiction, and the prosecution fails to prove the offense or otherwise leads to an acquittal.

  2. Gavieres v. U.S. (an older Philippine case under U.S. sovereignty, still instructive)

    • The “same evidence” test: Even if the charges arise from the same act, if each offense requires proof of an additional fact or element that the other does not, they are distinct offenses.

  3. People v. Bocar

    • Emphasizes that dismissal without the accused’s express consent bars a second prosecution if the dismissal is tantamount to an acquittal.

  4. Caes v. IAC

    • Affirms that double jeopardy does not attach if the first information was void or if the first court lacked jurisdiction.

  5. Felisilda v. People

    • Clarifies that an accused cannot be placed in jeopardy by a void indictment or in a court that lacks jurisdiction. Thus, if the first case was void ab initio, it does not give rise to a valid jeopardy.

  6. Villasis v. CA

    • Illustrates the principle that once a valid dismissal or acquittal is rendered by a competent court, the prosecution cannot circumvent the double jeopardy rule by simply refiling a new information for the same or an included offense.

VI. EXCEPTIONS AND SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS

  1. Lack of Jurisdiction or Invalid Information

    • No double jeopardy if the first proceeding was void for lack of jurisdiction or for having a fatally defective information.

  2. Demurrer to Evidence

    • If the accused files a demurrer to evidence without express leave of court and it is granted (leading to an acquittal), the prosecution cannot appeal (that would violate double jeopardy). If it is denied, the accused cannot present evidence anymore (he waived that right by filing the demurrer without leave), but no second prosecution for the same offense will arise out of that scenario.
    • If a demurrer is filed with leave of court and denied, the accused may still present evidence. If it is granted (resulting in an acquittal), the prosecution’s only possible remedy is to question it by certiorari if there is grave abuse of discretion.

  3. Supervening Event Doctrine

    • A second prosecution may be allowed if new facts (“supervening event”) transpire after the first conviction or acquittal, giving rise to a new and distinct offense. For instance, if the victim dies after the accused was initially prosecuted for physical injuries, the subsequent prosecution for homicide or murder may be allowed.

  4. Civil Aspect

    • Double jeopardy pertains to criminal prosecution. The civil liability aspect can still be pursued through a separate civil action, in certain instances, unless such civil aspect was deemed included and resolved in the criminal proceeding.

  5. Revocation of Probation

    • Revoking probation does not constitute double jeopardy because probation is not a second prosecution but a continuation or outcome of the same case, based on a prior conviction.

VII. PROCEDURAL OUTLINE

To invoke double jeopardy under Rule 117:

  1. File a Motion to Quash under Section 3(f).
  2. Present evidence (if needed, or if the court allows) or reference judicial records showing that the accused had already been acquitted, convicted, or the prior case was dismissed without his/her express consent by a competent court upon a valid charge.
  3. Wait for the court’s resolution:
    • If granted, the case is dismissed, and the prosecution is barred from filing the same offense or an included offense again.
    • If denied, the accused must choose between proceeding to trial or seeking an extraordinary remedy (e.g., certiorari) if there is a clear grave abuse of discretion.

VIII. BEST PRACTICES AND STRATEGIES

  1. Examine the prior proceeding thoroughly

    • Confirm the four requisites for double jeopardy: (1) valid indictment, (2) competent court, (3) arraignment and plea, and (4) acquittal/conviction/dismissal without consent.
    • Verify that the prior dismissal was on the merits or was tantamount to an acquittal (e.g., insufficiency of evidence).

  2. Check for identity or inclusion of offenses

    • Use the “same evidence test” and the textual elements test to ascertain whether the second offense is indeed the same, or necessarily included.

  3. Include certified true copies of records

    • Attach certified copies of the information, order of dismissal/acquittal, and any relevant pleadings to support your motion to quash.

  4. Raise double jeopardy as early as possible

    • Ordinarily, it should be raised before plea. Otherwise, it may be deemed waived unless it appears on the face of the record that double jeopardy has attached.

  5. Consider alternative grounds

    • In case the court denies your motion on double jeopardy, remain vigilant for other potential grounds (lack of jurisdiction, violation of right to speedy trial, etc.).

IX. KEY TAKEAWAYS

  1. Double jeopardy is a fundamental right guaranteed by the Constitution and reinforced by the Rules of Court.
  2. Strict adherence to the requirements is essential: valid charge, valid court, valid plea, and final disposition (acquittal, conviction, dismissal on the merits without accused’s express consent).
  3. Motion to Quash under Rule 117, Section 3(f) is the primary procedural mechanism for invoking the right before trial.
  4. Timing is crucial: raise double jeopardy promptly and comprehensively, supplying all necessary documentation.
  5. No second prosecution for the same or necessarily included offense if jeopardy attached and was validly terminated.
  6. Exceptions exist (void information, lack of jurisdiction, supervening event), so carefully evaluate the procedural history and factual circumstances to confirm if double jeopardy truly bars a second prosecution.

Final Word

The rule against double jeopardy under Rule 117 and Section 21, Article III of the 1987 Philippine Constitution is one of the strongest bulwarks of individual liberty in criminal litigation. It prevents the State from subjecting an individual to repeated prosecutions and punishments for the same act or offense, balancing the government’s interest in law enforcement against the fundamental rights of the accused.

In practice, ensuring that a motion to quash on double jeopardy grounds is properly and timely raised can mean the difference between the full protection of this constitutional safeguard or a protracted legal battle. Mastery of the rules, jurisprudential nuances, and procedural technicalities is thus indispensable for every litigator dealing with criminal cases in the Philippines.

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

Grounds | Motion to Quash (RULE 117) | CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

Below is a comprehensive, meticulous discussion of Rule 117 of the Philippine Rules of Criminal Procedure, focusing on the Motion to Quash and its grounds under Section 3. This write-up aims to provide a thorough understanding of what a Motion to Quash is, its purpose, the enumerated grounds, relevant procedural rules, and key jurisprudential points. Citations to the Rules and select Supreme Court pronouncements are included to anchor the discussion in established legal doctrine.

I. OVERVIEW OF MOTION TO QUASH

A Motion to Quash is a formal pleading filed by an accused in a criminal case to challenge the validity of a complaint or information before entering a plea. It is a crucial procedural tool because it can result in the outright dismissal of the charge if granted, sparing the accused from the ordeal of a protracted trial—provided the ground relied upon is one that effectively renders the criminal proceeding invalid or untenable.

Purpose of a Motion to Quash

  1. Ensure that the accused is tried only upon a valid complaint or information.
    A complaint or information must satisfy the requirements of the law, particularly the rules on form and substance, to validly confer jurisdiction upon the court and properly inform the accused of the charges.

  2. Protect the constitutional rights of the accused.
    It ensures that the accused is not subjected to multiple prosecutions for the same offense (double jeopardy), tried by a court that lacks jurisdiction, or made to answer an indictment that does not constitute a criminal offense.

  3. Promote judicial economy.
    A meritorious motion to quash can end a baseless prosecution early, avoiding unnecessary costs and delays for all parties, including the court.

Timing and Formal Requirements

  • Filing Before Plea: As a general rule, a Motion to Quash must be filed before the accused enters a plea (Sec. 1, Rule 117). Once the accused has pleaded (e.g., “Not Guilty”), certain grounds are deemed waived if not previously raised, subject to exceptions noted below.
  • Distinction from Demurrer to Evidence (Rule 119): A Motion to Quash deals with defects apparent in the complaint or information (or matters that can be judicially noticed), typically before trial. In contrast, a Demurrer to Evidence is filed after the prosecution rests its case, asserting that the evidence presented is insufficient to sustain a conviction.

II. GROUNDS FOR A MOTION TO QUASH (SECTION 3, RULE 117)

Section 3 of Rule 117 of the Rules of Court enumerates nine (9) grounds upon which the accused may move to quash the complaint or information:

  1. The facts charged do not constitute an offense.

    • Meaning: Even if all the factual allegations in the complaint or information were true, they do not amount to a punishable crime under Philippine law.
    • Example: An information charging a person with “stealing their own property” does not allege a recognized felony, as one cannot steal what belongs to oneself.
    • Effect: If the facts do not legally constitute an offense, the court must quash the information. It may, however, allow an amendment if the defect can be cured by adding or modifying factual allegations so as to properly charge an offense.

  2. The court trying the case has no jurisdiction over the offense charged.

    • Meaning: The subject matter of the offense does not fall within the power of the court to try. Jurisdiction over the offense is conferred by law based on the penalty, nature, or other attributes of the offense.
    • Example: An offense punishable by imprisonment exceeding six years might fall under the jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Court, whereas a lower penalty might fall under the Municipal Trial Court. If the information is filed in the wrong court, there is lack of jurisdiction.
    • Effect: Lack of subject matter jurisdiction is non-waivable. It can be raised at any time, even on appeal.

  3. The court has no jurisdiction over the person of the accused.

    • Meaning: The court must validly acquire jurisdiction over the accused, typically through a lawful arrest or the accused’s voluntary submission (e.g., when the accused files pleadings or participates in trial without objection).
    • Example: If the accused was illegally arrested and timely objects to the irregularity, the court may not have properly acquired personal jurisdiction.
    • Effect: Generally, any objection to personal jurisdiction may be waived if the accused appears and participates in the proceedings without raising this ground.

  4. The officer who filed the information had no authority to do so.

    • Meaning: Under Philippine law, criminal prosecutions must be initiated by an officer authorized by law, typically the public prosecutor (or Ombudsman/Special Prosecutor for offenses within the Sandiganbayan’s jurisdiction). A complaint or information signed by someone without legal authority is void.
    • Example: If a private person files an Information in court (without a public prosecutor’s signature or prior authority), it lacks prosecutorial authority.
    • Effect: The defect may be cured if the proper officer refiles or amends the information, unless the period of prescription has lapsed.

  5. It does not conform substantially to the prescribed form.

    • Meaning: The Rules of Court prescribe the required form and contents of a valid complaint or information (Rule 110). It must include the name of the accused, the designation of the offense, the acts or omissions complained of constituting the offense, and so on.
    • Effect: If the defect is merely formal and curable (e.g., minor errors in the caption, erroneous spelling of name, etc.), the court may allow amendment of the information rather than quash. If it is a substantial defect—such as a complete omission of an essential allegation—the information may be quashed outright if it cannot be rectified by amendment.

  6. More than one offense is charged, except when a single punishment for various offenses is prescribed by law.

    • Meaning: The rule against duplicity of offenses states that a complaint or information must charge only one offense, except in cases where the law prescribes a single penalty for multiple offenses (e.g., complex crimes under Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code).
    • Effect: If the court finds the information charges multiple distinct offenses, it may order the prosecution to elect which offense to pursue or to file separate Informations. If the prosecution refuses, the case may be quashed on this ground.

  7. The criminal action or liability has been extinguished.

    • Meaning: Under Article 89 of the Revised Penal Code, criminal liability is extinguished by death of the accused, amnesty, prescription of the offense, pardon (in certain cases), or other causes recognized by law. If the accused can show that liability has been extinguished, prosecution can no longer proceed.
    • Example: If the period for prescription of the offense has lapsed under the Revised Penal Code or special laws.
    • Effect: If proven, it bars further prosecution and results in permanent dismissal.

  8. It contains averments which, if true, would constitute a legal excuse or justification.

    • Meaning: Sometimes, the facts alleged in the complaint or information themselves show that the accused acted under circumstances which exempt or justify them (e.g., self-defense, insanity, lawful performance of duty).
    • Example: The information states that the accused, a police officer, shot the victim while the latter was violently attacking another person and was about to cause grave harm, thus alleging circumstances that might show justification.
    • Effect: If the recitals in the information already establish a complete justification or excuse, there is no offense to speak of, and the information should be quashed. However, courts often approach this with caution: self-defense or justification typically remains a matter to be proven at trial. This ground is strictly construed.

  9. The accused has been previously convicted or in jeopardy of being convicted, or acquitted of the offense charged.

    • Meaning: This is the principle against double jeopardy. An accused cannot be prosecuted twice for the same offense, or for any offense necessarily included therein, when there has already been a prior valid conviction, acquittal, or dismissal of the case without the accused’s express consent (under circumstances amounting to an acquittal).
    • Example: The accused was already tried and acquitted of theft of the same property. Any subsequent prosecution for the same alleged theft is barred.
    • Effect: Double jeopardy is a complete bar to a new prosecution for the same offense. The Motion to Quash, if proven, must be granted and is a permanent dismissal of the case.

III. WAIVER OF DEFENSES AND EXCEPTIONS

Under Section 9, Rule 117, certain grounds for a motion to quash are deemed waived if not raised before the accused enters a plea. Notably:

  • Waivable Grounds:
    Grounds such as (a) that the facts charged do not constitute an offense, (e) non-conformity to prescribed form, (f) duplicity of offenses, and (h) the presence of an excusing/justifying circumstance on the face of the information may be deemed waived if not timely raised.

  • Non-Waivable Grounds:

    • Lack of jurisdiction over the offense (subject matter jurisdiction) can be raised at any time—even on appeal.
    • Double jeopardy can also be raised at any stage once it is established that a second prosecution is indeed for the same offense.

IV. PROCEDURE AFTER FILING THE MOTION TO QUASH

  1. Hearing: Upon filing the motion, the court typically schedules a hearing. The prosecution is given an opportunity to oppose and present arguments or evidence if necessary (e.g., to prove the authority of the officer who filed the information).

  2. Ruling of the Court:

    • If the motion is granted and the defect is one that cannot be cured (such as extinction of criminal liability or double jeopardy), the dismissal is final and the accused may no longer be prosecuted for the same offense.
    • If the defect can be cured by an amendment (e.g., defective form, lack of some essential averments), the court may allow the prosecution to amend, or it may dismiss the case with leave for the prosecution to refile with the correct allegations (subject to the rules on prescription).

  3. Effect of Denial:

    • The accused must plead and proceed to trial.
    • An interlocutory order denying a motion to quash generally is not appealable nor subject to certiorari unless there is a clear showing of grave abuse of discretion.

V. RELEVANT JURISPRUDENCE

  • People v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 160619 (2006) – Emphasizes that lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter can be raised at any stage of the proceedings.
  • People v. Odtuhan, 713 SCRA 175 – Explains that when the information’s allegations do not constitute an offense, the proper remedy is a motion to quash, and if granted, the prosecution may amend if the defect is only in form.
  • People v. Balabagan, 717 SCRA 382 – Illustrates the principle that if the allegations in the information themselves show a justifying circumstance, a motion to quash may be proper, but typically courts require evidence at trial to confirm such circumstances.
  • Brocka v. Enrile, 192 SCRA 183 – Discusses the requirement that the Information must sufficiently allege facts to constitute the elements of the offense to avoid vagueness and violation of the accused’s constitutional right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation.

VI. PRACTICAL POINTERS AND LEGAL ETHICS

  1. Be Prompt and Thorough: Defense counsel should meticulously review the Information or Complaint before the accused pleads. Any potential ground for quashal should be raised in a timely motion to avoid waiver.
  2. Clear Drafting: The motion must plainly specify the ground or grounds relied upon, ideally segregating each ground with factual or legal arguments for clarity.
  3. Duty of Candor: Counsel must maintain honesty in representations to the court. If a ground is plainly non-existent or contrived, ethical practice dictates refraining from filing a frivolous motion.
  4. Client’s Informed Consent: The lawyer should advise the client on the ramifications of filing or not filing a motion to quash—especially regarding grounds that may be waived once the accused pleads.

VII. SAMPLE FORM FOR MOTION TO QUASH

Below is a simplified skeleton form. In practice, this should be adapted to the specific facts, grounds invoked, and local court practice.

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
[Judicial Region/Branch]
[City/Province]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,            Criminal Case No. ____
     Plaintiff,

       -versus-

[NAME OF ACCUSED],
     Accused.
____________________________________/

                    MOTION TO QUASH INFORMATION

Accused, through undersigned counsel, respectfully states:

1. That the undersigned counsel received a copy of the Information dated [date] charging the accused with [specify offense].

2. That before the accused enters a plea, accused moves to quash the Information on the following ground(s):

   A. [State Ground 1 with reference to Section 3, Rule 117];
   B. [State Ground 2, if any]; and so forth.

3. [Provide a succinct but thorough discussion of the factual and legal basis for each ground.]

4. In view of the foregoing, the accused respectfully prays that the Honorable Court QUASH the Information and DISMISS the instant case.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED.

[Date and Place]

                                                          [Signature of Counsel]
                                                          [Name of Counsel]
                                                          [IBP No., PTR No., MCLE Compliance,
                                                           Address, Roll No.]

VIII. CONCLUSION

A Motion to Quash is a powerful defensive remedy available to an accused that attacks the very foundation of a criminal prosecution. By raising any of the valid grounds set out in Rule 117, Section 3, and doing so in a timely and proper manner, the accused may effectively prevent an invalid or unjust prosecution from proceeding.

Key takeaways include:

  • File Early: Raise grounds before entering a plea to avoid waiver (for most grounds).
  • Identify Cure vs. Fatal Defect: Some defects (e.g., lack of subject matter jurisdiction, double jeopardy) absolutely bar prosecution; others (like form defects) are curable by amendment.
  • Be Familiar with Waivable/Non-Waivable Grounds: Know which grounds can be raised anytime (lack of jurisdiction, double jeopardy) versus those that must be raised promptly.
  • Stay Updated: Continually check new rulings of the Supreme Court that might refine or clarify these grounds.

When properly employed, a Motion to Quash fulfills its role in upholding the rights of the accused and preserving the integrity of criminal proceedings, ensuring that prosecutions rest on solid legal and factual bases.

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

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