What is proper remedy against an order denying a motion to quash?

The proper remedy against an order denying a motion to quash is to go to trial.

● In fine, 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. 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. 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 reiterated the special defenses contained in their motion to quash. There are no special or exceptional circumstances in the present case that would justify immediate resort to a filing of a petition for certiorari. Clearly, the CA did not commit any reversible error, much less, grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the petition. [Hilario P. Soriano vs People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 162336, February 1, 2010]

● 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 court’s 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 latter’s ruling. [Soriaga vs Briones and People, G.R. No. 164682, September 14, 2011]

The denial of a motion to quash is an interlocutory order and is not appealable

The denial of a motion to quash is an interlocutory order and is not appealable; neither can it be a proper subject of a petition for certiorari. 

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.

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. [Soriaga vs Briones and People, G.R. No. 164682, September 14, 2011]

Purpose of a motion to quash

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. [Soriaga vs Briones and People, G.R. No. 164682, September 14, 2011]

The remedy against a defect in the averment as to the time of the commission of the crime charged is a motion for a bill of particulars

A defect in the averment as to the time of the commission of the crime charged is not a ground for a motion to quash; the right remedy is a motion for a bill of particulars.

Facts: Rocaberte and two others were charged with the crime of theft. The Information states:

That on or about the period from 1977 to December 28, 1983 at the off offshore of West Canayaon, municipal of Garcia-Hernandez, province of Bohol, Philippines, the above-named accused, conspiring, confederating and helping each other, with intent to gain and without the consent of the owner, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously take, steal and carry away the following properties...

Rocaberte moved to quash the information, alleging that the statement of the time of commission of the felony charged, "from 1977 to December 1983, a period of 7 years," or "about 2,551 days," was fatally defective; there was "so great a gap as to defy approximation in the commission of one and the same offense"; "the variance is certainly unfair to the accused for it violates their constitutional right to be informed before the trial of the specific charge against them and deprives them of the opportunity to defend themselves. The trial court denied the motion. Hence, the appeal.

Held: The rules of criminal procedure declare that a complaint or information is sufficient if it states the approximate time of the commission of the offense. Where, however, the statement of the time of the commission of the offense is so general as to span a number of years, i.e., "between October, 1910 to August, 1912," it has been held to be fatally defective because it deprives the accused an opportunity to prepare his defense.

A defect in the averment as to the time of the commission of the crime charged is not, however, a ground for a motion to quash under Rule 116 of the Rules of Court. Even if it were, a motion for quashal on that account will be denied since the defect is one that can be cured by amendment.

The remedy against an indictment that fails to allege the time of the commission of the offense with sufficient definiteness is a motion for a bill of particulars.

The information against Rocaberte is indeed seriously defective. It places on him and his co-accused the unfair and unreasonable burden of having to recall their activities over a span of more than 2,500 days. It is a burden nobody should be made to bear. The public prosecutor must make more definite and particular the time of the commission of the crime of theft attributed to Rocaberte and his co-defendants. If he cannot, the prosecution cannot be maintained, the case must be dismissed. [Felicisimo Rocaberte vs People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 165879, G.R. No. 72994, January 23, 1991]