#6 Galzote v Briones, GR 164682, 14 Sept.

2009
BRION,J.

FACTS: Petitioner was charged by prosecution for robbery in an uninhabited place before MeTC Manila.
Petitioner moved to quash the information by alleging that it is flawed in form and in substance. However,
the MeTC denied the motion. Petitioner petitioned for certiorari, however the RTC and CA denied the
motion. The CA explained that the allegation of conspiracy in his case need not be alleged with
particularity since it was not charged as an offense in itself, but only as a manner of incurring criminal
liability. The fact that the petitioners alleged co-conspirator had been convicted of the lesser offense of
mischief in another case is not a bar to the petitioners prosecution for the crime of robbery.

ISSUE: Did the MeTC and the RTC commit grave abuse of discretion by denying petitioners motion to
quash?

RULING: NO. The MeTC in fact did not commit ay grave abuse of discretion as its denial of the motion to
quash was consistent with the existing rules and applicable jurisprudence. The ground used by the
petitioner in his motion to quash (i.e., that his co-conspirator had been convicted of an offense lesser than
the crime of robbery) is not among the exclusive grounds enumerated under Sec. 3, Rule 117 of the 2000
Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure that warrant the quashal of a criminal information.

Under the circumstances, the criminal information is sufficient in form and substance for it states: (a) th
e name of thepetitioner as the accused; (b) the offense of robbery as the designated offense committed;
(c) the manner on how the offense of robbery was committed and the petitioners participation were
alleged with particularity; and (d) the date and the place of the commission of the robbery were also
stated therein. Thus, as the RTC correctly ruled, the petitioner can be properly tried under the allegations
of the information.