Lawyerly

GR No. 176830

2014-02-11

SERENO, C.J.

In the context of a preliminary investigation, the right to due process of law entails the opportunity to be heard.[87] It serves to accord an opportunity for the presentation of the respondent's side with regard to the accusation. Afterwards, the investigating officer shall decide whether the allegations and defenses lead to a reasonable belief that a crime has been committed, and that it was the respondent who committed it. Otherwise, the investigating officer is bound to dismiss the complaint.

GR No. 191566

2013-07-17

PEOPLE v. EDGARDO V. ODTUHAN

PERALTA, J.

As defined in Antone, "a motion to quash information is the mode by which an accused assails the validity of a criminal complaint or information filed against him for insufficiency on its face in point of law, or for defects which are apparent in the face of the information." It is a hypothetical admission of the facts alleged in the information. The fundamental test in determining the sufficiency of the material averments in an Information is whether or not the facts alleged therein, which are hypothetically admitted, would establish the essential elements of the crime defined by law. Evidence aliunde or matters extrinsic of the information are not to be considered.[27] To be sure, a motion to quash should be based on a defect in the information which is evident on its fact.[28] Thus, if the defect can be cured by amendment or if it is based on the ground that the facts charged do not constitute an offense, the prosecution is given by the court the opportunity to correct the defect by amendment.[29] If the motion to quash is sustained, the court may order that another complaint or information be filed[30] except when the information is quashed on the ground of extinction of criminal liability or double jeopardy.[31]

GR No. 199082

2012-09-18

JOSE MIGUEL T. ARROYO v. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

PERALTA, J.

The equal protection guarantee exists to prevent undue favor or privilege. It is intended to eliminate discrimination and oppression based on inequality. Recognizing the existence of real differences among men, it does not demand absolute equality. It merely requires that all persons under like circumstances and conditions shall be treated alike both as to privileges conferred and liabilities enforced.[78]

GR No. 166467

2012-09-17

DANILO R. QUERIJERO v. LINA PALMES-LIMITAR

PERALTA, J.

At the outset, we must reiterate the fundamental principle that an order denying a motion to quash is interlocutory and, therefore, not appealable, nor can it be the subject of a petition for certiorari.[9]

GR No. 192591

2012-07-30

EFREN L. ALVAREZ v. PEOPLE

VILLARAMA, JR., J.

As this Court explained in Santos v. People[8]: The prosecution of one guilty person while others equally guilty are not prosecuted, however, is not, by itself, a denial of the equal protection of the laws. Where the official action purports to be in conformity to the statutory classification, an erroneous or mistaken performance of the statutory duty, although a violation of the statute, is not without more a denial of the equal protection of the laws. The unlawful administration by officers of a statute fair on its face, resulting in its unequal application to those who are entitled to be treated alike, is not a denial of equal protection unless there is shown to be present in it an element of intentional or purposeful discrimination. This may appear on the face of the action taken with respect to a particular class or person, or it may only be shown by extrinsic evidence showing a discriminatory design over another not to be inferred from the action itself. But a discriminatory purpose is not presumed, there must be a showing of "clear and intentional discrimination." Appellant has failed to show that, in charging appellant in court, that there was a "clear and intentional discrimination" on the part of the prosecuting officials.

GR No. 164682

2011-09-14

JOEL GALZOTE Y SORIAGA v. JONATHAN BRIONES

BRION, J.

As a rule, the denial of a motion to quash is an interlocutory order and is not appealable; an appeal from an interlocutory order is not allowed under Section 1(b), Rule 41 of the Rules of Court. Neither can it be a proper subject of a petition for certiorari which can be used only in the absence of an appeal or any other adequate, plain and speedy remedy.[11] The plain and speedy remedy upon denial of an interlocutory order is to proceed to trial as discussed above.

GR No. 190994

2011-09-07

TONGONAN HOLDINGS v. ATTY. FRANCISCO ESCAÑO

MENDOZA, J.

The test to determine whether an order or judgment is interlocutory or final is this: "Does it leave something to be done in the trial court with respect to the merits of the case? If it does, it is interlocutory; if it does not, it is final". A court order is final in character if it puts an end to the particular matter resolved or settles definitely the matter therein disposed of, such that no further questions can come before the court except the execution of the order. The term "final" judgment or order signifies a judgment or an order which disposes of the cause as to all the parties, reserving no further questions or directions for future determination. The order or judgment may validly refer to the entire controversy or to some definite and separate branch thereof. "In the absence of a statutory definition, a final judgment, order or decree has been held to be x x x one that finally disposes of, adjudicates, or determines the rights, or some right or rights of the parties, either on the entire controversy or on some definite and separate branch thereof, and which concludes them until it is reversed or set aside." The central point to consider is, therefore, the effects of the order on the rights of the parties. A court order, on the other hand, is merely interlocutory in character if it is provisional and leaves substantial proceeding to be had in connection with its subject. The word "interlocutory" refers to "something intervening between the commencement and the end of a suit which decides some point or matter but is not a final decision of the whole controversy."[18]

GR No. 193902

2011-06-01

ATTY. MARIETTA D. ZAMORANOS v. PEOPLE

NACHURA, J.

However, on a number of occasions, we have recognized that in certain situations, certiorari is considered an appropriate remedy to assail an interlocutory order, specifically the denial of a motion to quash. We have recognized the propriety of the following exceptions: (a) when the court issued the order without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion; (b) when the interlocutory order is patently erroneous and the remedy of appeal would not afford adequate and expeditious relief; (c) in the interest of a "more enlightened and substantial justice";[23] (d) to promote public welfare and public policy;[24] and (e) when the cases "have attracted nationwide attention, making it essential to proceed with dispatch in the consideration thereof."[25] The first four of the foregoing exceptions occur in this instance.

GR No. 192935

2010-12-07

LOUIS 'BAROK' C. BIRAOGO v. PHILIPPINE TRUTH COMMISSION OF 2010

MENDOZA, J.

One of the basic principles on which this government was founded is that of the equality of right which is embodied in Section 1, Article III of the 1987 Constitution. The equal protection of the laws is embraced in the concept of due process, as every unfair discrimination offends the requirements of justice and fair play. It has been embodied in a separate clause, however, to provide for a more specific guaranty against any form of undue favoritism or hostility from the government. Arbitrariness in general may be challenged on the basis of the due process clause. But if the particular act assailed partakes of an unwarranted partiality or prejudice, the sharper weapon to cut it down is the equal protection clause.[74]

GR No. 178899

2010-11-15

PHILIPPINE BUSINESS BANK v. FELIPE CHUA

BRION, J.

Lastly, taking jurisdiction over this issue now would only result in multiple appeals from a single case which concerns the same, or integrated, causes of action. As we said in Santos v. People:[41]

GR No. 159275

2010-08-25

REPUBLIC v. SANDIGANBAYAN

VILLARAMA, JR., J.

Certiorari is an appropriate remedy to assail an interlocutory order (1) when the tribunal issued such order without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion; and (2) when the assailed interlocutory order is patently erroneous, and the remedy of appeal would not afford adequate and expeditious relief.[24] Recourse to a petition for certiorari to assail an interlocutory order is now expressly recognized in the ultimate paragraph of Section 1, Rule 41 of the Revised Rules of Court on the subject of appeal, which states:[25]

GR No. 175910

2009-07-30

ATTY. ROGELIO E. SARSABA v. FE VDA. DE TE

PERALTA, J.

Another recognized reason of the law in permitting appeal only from a final order or judgment, and not from an interlocutory or incidental one, is to avoid multiplicity of appeals in a single action, which must necessarily suspend the hearing and decision on the merits of the case during the pendency of the appeal. If such appeal were allowed, trial on the merits of the case would necessarily be delayed for a considerable length of time and compel the adverse party to incur unnecessary expenses, for one of the parties may interpose as many appeals as incidental questions may be raised by him, and interlocutory orders rendered or issued by the lower court.[36]

	GR No. 176830 2014-02-11	SATURNINO C. OCAMPO v. EPHREM S. ABANDO SERENO, C.J.
In the context of a preliminary investigation, the right to due process of law entails the opportunity to be heard.[87] It serves to accord an opportunity for the presentation of the respondent's side with regard to the accusation. Afterwards, the investigating officer shall decide whether the allegations and defenses lead to a reasonable belief that a crime has been committed, and that it was the respondent who committed it. Otherwise, the investigating officer is bound to dismiss the complaint.
	GR No. 191566 2013-07-17	PEOPLE v. EDGARDO V. ODTUHAN PERALTA, J.
As defined in Antone, "a motion to quash information is the mode by which an accused assails the validity of a criminal complaint or information filed against him for insufficiency on its face in point of law, or for defects which are apparent in the face of the information." It is a hypothetical admission of the facts alleged in the information. The fundamental test in determining the sufficiency of the material averments in an Information is whether or not the facts alleged therein, which are hypothetically admitted, would establish the essential elements of the crime defined by law. Evidence aliunde or matters extrinsic of the information are not to be considered.[27] To be sure, a motion to quash should be based on a defect in the information which is evident on its fact.[28] Thus, if the defect can be cured by amendment or if it is based on the ground that the facts charged do not constitute an offense, the prosecution is given by the court the opportunity to correct the defect by amendment.[29] If the motion to quash is sustained, the court may order that another complaint or information be filed[30] except when the information is quashed on the ground of extinction of criminal liability or double jeopardy.[31]
	GR No. 199082 2012-09-18	JOSE MIGUEL T. ARROYO v. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE PERALTA, J.
The equal protection guarantee exists to prevent undue favor or privilege. It is intended to eliminate discrimination and oppression based on inequality. Recognizing the existence of real differences among men, it does not demand absolute equality. It merely requires that all persons under like circumstances and conditions shall be treated alike both as to privileges conferred and liabilities enforced.[78]
	GR No. 166467 2012-09-17	DANILO R. QUERIJERO v. LINA PALMES-LIMITAR PERALTA, J.
At the outset, we must reiterate the fundamental principle that an order denying a motion to quash is interlocutory and, therefore, not appealable, nor can it be the subject of a petition for certiorari.[9]
	GR No. 192591 2012-07-30	EFREN L. ALVAREZ v. PEOPLE VILLARAMA, JR., J.
As this Court explained in Santos v. People[8]: The prosecution of one guilty person while others equally guilty are not prosecuted, however, is not, by itself, a denial of the equal protection of the laws. Where the official action purports to be in conformity to the statutory classification, an erroneous or mistaken performance of the statutory duty, although a violation of the statute, is not without more a denial of the equal protection of the laws. The unlawful administration by officers of a statute fair on its face, resulting in its unequal application to those who are entitled to be treated alike, is not a denial of equal protection unless there is shown to be present in it an element of intentional or purposeful discrimination. This may appear on the face of the action taken with respect to a particular class or person, or it may only be shown by extrinsic evidence showing a discriminatory design over another not to be inferred from the action itself. But a discriminatory purpose is not presumed, there must be a showing of "clear and intentional discrimination." Appellant has failed to show that, in charging appellant in court, that there was a "clear and intentional discrimination" on the part of the prosecuting officials.
	GR No. 164682 2011-09-14	JOEL GALZOTE Y SORIAGA v. JONATHAN BRIONES BRION, J.
As a rule, the denial of a motion to quash is an interlocutory order and is not appealable; an appeal from an interlocutory order is not allowed under Section 1(b), Rule 41 of the Rules of Court. Neither can it be a proper subject of a petition for certiorari which can be used only in the absence of an appeal or any other adequate, plain and speedy remedy.[11] The plain and speedy remedy upon denial of an interlocutory order is to proceed to trial as discussed above.
	GR No. 190994 2011-09-07	TONGONAN HOLDINGS v. ATTY. FRANCISCO ESCAÑO MENDOZA, J.
The test to determine whether an order or judgment is interlocutory or final is this: "Does it leave something to be done in the trial court with respect to the merits of the case? If it does, it is interlocutory; if it does not, it is final". A court order is final in character if it puts an end to the particular matter resolved or settles definitely the matter therein disposed of, such that no further questions can come before the court except the execution of the order. The term "final" judgment or order signifies a judgment or an order which disposes of the cause as to all the parties, reserving no further questions or directions for future determination. The order or judgment may validly refer to the entire controversy or to some definite and separate branch thereof. "In the absence of a statutory definition, a final judgment, order or decree has been held to be x x x one that finally disposes of, adjudicates, or determines the rights, or some right or rights of the parties, either on the entire controversy or on some definite and separate branch thereof, and which concludes them until it is reversed or set aside." The central point to consider is, therefore, the effects of the order on the rights of the parties. A court order, on the other hand, is merely interlocutory in character if it is provisional and leaves substantial proceeding to be had in connection with its subject. The word "interlocutory" refers to "something intervening between the commencement and the end of a suit which decides some point or matter but is not a final decision of the whole controversy."[18]
	GR No. 193902 2011-06-01	ATTY. MARIETTA D. ZAMORANOS v. PEOPLE NACHURA, J.
However, on a number of occasions, we have recognized that in certain situations, certiorari is considered an appropriate remedy to assail an interlocutory order, specifically the denial of a motion to quash. We have recognized the propriety of the following exceptions: (a) when the court issued the order without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion; (b) when the interlocutory order is patently erroneous and the remedy of appeal would not afford adequate and expeditious relief; (c) in the interest of a "more enlightened and substantial justice";[23] (d) to promote public welfare and public policy;[24] and (e) when the cases "have attracted nationwide attention, making it essential to proceed with dispatch in the consideration thereof."[25] The first four of the foregoing exceptions occur in this instance.
	GR No. 192935 2010-12-07	LOUIS 'BAROK' C. BIRAOGO v. PHILIPPINE TRUTH COMMISSION OF 2010 MENDOZA, J.
One of the basic principles on which this government was founded is that of the equality of right which is embodied in Section 1, Article III of the 1987 Constitution. The equal protection of the laws is embraced in the concept of due process, as every unfair discrimination offends the requirements of justice and fair play. It has been embodied in a separate clause, however, to provide for a more specific guaranty against any form of undue favoritism or hostility from the government. Arbitrariness in general may be challenged on the basis of the due process clause. But if the particular act assailed partakes of an unwarranted partiality or prejudice, the sharper weapon to cut it down is the equal protection clause.[74]
	GR No. 178899 2010-11-15	PHILIPPINE BUSINESS BANK v. FELIPE CHUA BRION, J.
Lastly, taking jurisdiction over this issue now would only result in multiple appeals from a single case which concerns the same, or integrated, causes of action. As we said in Santos v. People:[41]
	GR No. 159275 2010-08-25	REPUBLIC v. SANDIGANBAYAN VILLARAMA, JR., J.
Certiorari is an appropriate remedy to assail an interlocutory order (1) when the tribunal issued such order without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion; and (2) when the assailed interlocutory order is patently erroneous, and the remedy of appeal would not afford adequate and expeditious relief.[24] Recourse to a petition for certiorari to assail an interlocutory order is now expressly recognized in the ultimate paragraph of Section 1, Rule 41 of the Revised Rules of Court on the subject of appeal, which states:[25]
	GR No. 175910 2009-07-30	ATTY. ROGELIO E. SARSABA v. FE VDA. DE TE PERALTA, J.
Another recognized reason of the law in permitting appeal only from a final order or judgment, and not from an interlocutory or incidental one, is to avoid multiplicity of appeals in a single action, which must necessarily suspend the hearing and decision on the merits of the case during the pendency of the appeal. If such appeal were allowed, trial on the merits of the case would necessarily be delayed for a considerable length of time and compel the adverse party to incur unnecessary expenses, for one of the parties may interpose as many appeals as incidental questions may be raised by him, and interlocutory orders rendered or issued by the lower court.[36]

JUDY ANNE L. SANTOS v. PEOPLE