Case Index

Wednesday, December 10, 2014

Notice of dismissal prevails over motion to dismiss

Facts: Petitioner Frederick Dael filed a complaint for breach of contract and damages against respondent-spouses Benedicto and Vilma Beltran. Dael alleged that the Beltrans sold him a parcel of land without disclosing that the land was previously mortgaged. Possession and ownership of the property was delivered to him when he paid the bid price. Dael argued that Beltran’s non-disclosure

The failure to allege accurately the relationship between the appellant and his victim bars his conviction in the qualified form

Facts: Reynaldo Poñado is charged with three counts of rape under Art. 335 of the Revised Penal Code as amended by R.A. 7659. The relationship of the victim to Poñado, however, was not accurately alleged in the information filed by the Provincial Prosecutor. In all three informations the victim, 13-year old Mariner Bombales, has been stated to be the stepdaughter of the accused; yet,

Where victim is a minor and related to the offender, both facts must be alleged in the Information before an accused can be convicted of qualified rape

Facts: Demetrio Nuñez was charged with raping his 14-year old daughter. However, the minority of the victim is not stated in the Information. What was alleged therein was only the relationship of the offended party as the daughter of the offender. The trial court convicted Nuñez with the crime of qualified rape, and sentenced him to suffer the penalty of

An extrajudicial confession is binding only on the confessant and is not admissible against his or her co-accused; exception

Facts: Atty. Franklin V. Tamargo and his 8-year-old daughter were shot and killed in 2003. The police had no leads on the perpetrators of the crime until a certain Reynaldo Geron surfaced and executed an affidavit wherein he stated that a certain Lucio Columna told him during a drinking spree that Atty. Tamargo was ordered killed by Lloyd Antiporda and that he (Columna) was one of those

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

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

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)