JOEL GALZOTE vs.

JONATHAN BRIONES and PEOPLE

FACTS OF THE CASE:

On January 23, 1997, the prosecution filed an Information for robbery in an uninhabited place against the
petitioner before MeTC. The petitioner moved to quash the information by alleging that it was patently irregular and
fatally flawed in form and in substance. The MeTC denied the petitioners motion to quash in its order of September
15, 1997 and likewise, denied the petitioners motion for reconsideration of the order of denial.
Via a petition for certiorari, the petitioner elevated the unfavorable ruling of the MeTC to the RTC. In its
order of March 22, 2002, the RTC granted the respondents motion and dismissed the petition for certiorari. One of
the reasons was that it was not the proper remedy. The RTC also denied the motion for reconsideration filed by the
petitioner.
The petitioner filed a petition for certiorari before the CA. The CA, however, dismissed the petition in its
resolution of April 30, 2004. The CA held that petitioner failed to appeal within the 15-day reglementary period
under Rule 41 of the Revised Rules of Court. Petitioner should have filed an appeal, instead of a special civil action
for certiorari.

ISSUE: Whether or not the petition for certiorari is correct

SC DECISION:
A preliminary consideration in this case relates to the propriety of the chosen legal remedies availed of by
the petitioner in the lower courts to question the denial of his motion to quash. In the usual course of procedure, a
denial of a motion to quash filed by the accused results in the continuation of the trial and the determination of the
guilt or innocence of the accused. If a judgment of conviction is rendered and the lower courts decision of
conviction is appealed, the accused can then raise the denial of his motion to quash not only as an error committed
by the trial court but as an added ground to overturn the latters ruling.
In this case, the petitioner did not proceed to trial but opted to immediately question the denial of his
motion to quash via a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court.
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. The plain and speedy remedy upon denial of an interlocutory order is to proceed to trial as
discussed above.
Thus, a direct resort to a special civil action for certiorari is an exception rather than the general rule, and
is a recourse that must be firmly grounded on compelling reasons. In past cases, we have cited the interest of a
"more enlightened and substantial justice"; the promotion of public welfare and public policy; cases that "have
attracted nationwide attention, making it essential to proceed with dispatch in the consideration thereof";or
judgments on order attended by grave abuse of discretion, as compelling reasons to justify a petition for certiorari.
In grave abuse of discretion cases, certiorari is appropriate if the petitioner can establish that the lower
court issued the judgment or order without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion, and the
remedy of appeal would not afford adequate and expeditious relief. The petitioner carries the burden of showing that
the attendant facts and circumstances fall within any of the cited instances.
The Supreme Court held that the designated purpose of a motion to quash is to assail the validity of the
criminal information (or criminal complaint) for defects or defenses apparent on the face of the information. A facial
examination of the criminal information against the petitioner shows it to be valid and regular on its face considering
its conformity with the guidelines under Section 6, Rule 110 of the 2000 Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure.
Under the circumstances, the criminal information is sufficient in form and substance
As a final word, we cannot allow a party to delay litigation by filing a petition for certiorari under Rule 65
based on scant allegations of grave abuse of discretion. We repeat that it is only in the presence of extraordinary
circumstances where a resort to a petition for certiorari is proper. Under the circumstances, the petitioners recourses
cannot but be dilatory moves that deserve sanction from this Court.