This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2012-07-18 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| The factual and legal situations in the present case are essentially on all fours with those involved in Basa v. People.[18] In the said case, the accused were charged with swindling and falsification of public documents. Subsequently, the accused filed a Joint Motion to Quash on the ground that the facts charged in each Information do not constitute an offense. Thereafter, the MeTC issued an order in favor of the accused and, accordingly, quashed the Informations. The private complainant, with the conformity of the public prosecutor, filed a motion for reconsideration but the MeTC denied it. On appeal, the RTC reversed the order of the MeTC and directed the continuation of the proceedings. The accused then filed a petition for review with the CA. In its assailed decision, the CA dismissed the petition on the ground that the remedy of appeal from the RTC decision is improper, because the said decision is actually interlocutory in nature. | |||||
|
2005-06-29 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| The Court has consistently held that a special civil action for certiorari is not the proper remedy to assail the denial of a motion to quash an information.[20] The proper procedure in such a case is for the accused to enter a plea, go to trial without prejudice on his part to present the special defenses he had invoked in his motion to quash and, if after trial on the merits, an adverse decision is rendered, to appeal therefrom in the manner authorized by law.[21] Thus, petitioners should not have forthwith filed a special civil action for certiorari with the CA and instead, they should have gone to trial and reiterate the special defenses contained in their motion to quash. There are no special or exceptional circumstances[22] in the present case such that immediate resort to a filing of a petition for certiorari should be permitted. Clearly, the CA did not commit any grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the petition. | |||||
|
2005-04-21 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| It is basic that Rule 45 of the Rules of Court governs appeals from judgment or final orders.[10] A final order is one which disposes of the whole subject matter or terminates a particular proceeding or action, leaving nothing to be done but to enforce by execution what has been determined.[11] The resolution of the Sandiganbayan sought to be reviewed or set aside is not in any sense judgment or a final order, but an interlocutory order.[12] An order is interlocutory if it does not dispose of a case completely, but leaves something more to be done on its merits.[13] The order of the Sandiganbayan denying the motion to quash filed by petitioners is interlocutory in nature because it leaves something more to be done by the Sandiganbayan, by way of resolving the case on the merits. The denial of petitioners' motion to quash allows the same petitioners to enter a plea, go to trial without prejudice on their part to present the special defenses they invoked in their motion and if, after trial on the merits, an adverse decision is rendered, to appeal therefrom via appeal by certiorari.[14] | |||||
|
2005-04-21 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| It is basic that Rule 45 of the Rules of Court governs appeals from judgment or final orders.[10] A final order is one which disposes of the whole subject matter or terminates a particular proceeding or action, leaving nothing to be done but to enforce by execution what has been determined.[11] The resolution of the Sandiganbayan sought to be reviewed or set aside is not in any sense judgment or a final order, but an interlocutory order.[12] An order is interlocutory if it does not dispose of a case completely, but leaves something more to be done on its merits.[13] The order of the Sandiganbayan denying the motion to quash filed by petitioners is interlocutory in nature because it leaves something more to be done by the Sandiganbayan, by way of resolving the case on the merits. The denial of petitioners' motion to quash allows the same petitioners to enter a plea, go to trial without prejudice on their part to present the special defenses they invoked in their motion and if, after trial on the merits, an adverse decision is rendered, to appeal therefrom via appeal by certiorari.[14] | |||||