Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
vs.
COURT OF APPEALS (17TH DIVISION), First Asst. Provincial Prosecutor. DENNIS M.
VILLA-IGNACIO of Pasig, Rizal; THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES; and PNP P/SR.
SUPT. RICARDO F. DE LEON, Camp Commander and Head of the PNP Custodial
Group, Camp Crame, Cubao, Quezon City, respondents.
G.R. No. 114046 October 24, 1994
FACTS:
On November 12, 1993, petitioners Honorato Galvez, the incumbent Mayor of San Ildefonso,
Bulacan, and one Godofredo Diego were charged in three separate informations with homicide
and two counts of frustrated homicide for allegedly shooting to death Alvin Calma Vinculado
and seriously wounding Levi Calma Vinculado and Miguel Reyes Vinculado, Jr.
On December 15, 1993, before petitioners could be arraigned, respondent prosecutor filed an Ex
Parte Motion to Withdraw Informations of the original informations. This motion was granted by
Judge Villajuan also on December 15, 1993 and the cases were considered withdrawn from the
docket of the court. On the same day, Prosecutor Villa-Ignacio filed four new informations
against herein petitioners for murder, two counts of frustrated murder, and violation of
Presidential Decree No. 1866 for illegal possession of firearms.
Thereafter, a Motion to Quash the new informations for lack of jurisdiction was filed by
petitioners before Judge Pornillos on January 3, 1994. At the court session set for the
arraignment of petitioners on January 24, 1994, Judge Pornillos issued an order denying the
motion to quash.
In the meantime, and prior to the arraignment of herein petitioners before Judge Pornillos, an
order was issued on January 20, 1994 by Judge Villajuan granting the motion for reconsideration
filed by petitioners, ordering the reinstatementof the original informations, and setting the
arraignment of the accused therein for February 8, 1994. On said date, however, the arraignment
was suspended and, in the meanwhile, petitioners filed a petition for certiorari, prohibition and
mandamus with respondent Court of Appeals, assailing the order dated January 24, 1994 issued
by Judge Pornillos which denied petitioners’ motion to quash filed for the new informations. As
earlier stated, respondent court dismissed the petition in its questioned resolution of February 18,
1994, hence this petition.
ISSUES:
Whether the ex parte motion to withdraw the original informations is null and void on the ground
that there was no notice and hearing as required by Sections 4, 5 and 6, Rule 15 of the Rules of
Court.
RULING:
No, considering that in the original cases before Branch 14 of the trial court petitioners had not
yet been placed in jeopardy, and the ex parte motion to withdraw was filed and granted before
they could be arraigned, there would be no imperative need for notice and hearing thereof. In
actuality, the real grievance of herein accused is not the dismissal of the original three
informations but the filing of four new informations, three of which charge graver offenses and
the fourth, an additional offense. Had these new informations not been filed, there would
obviously have been no cause for the instant petition. Accordingly, their complaint about the
supposed procedural lapses involved in the motion to dismiss filed and granted in Criminal Cases
Nos. 3642-M-93 to 3644-M-93 does not impress us as a candid presentation of their real
position.
Petitioner’s contention that the dismissal of the original informations and the consequent filing of
the new ones substantially affected their right to bail is too strained and tenuous an argument.
They would want to ignore the fact that had the original informations been amended so as to
charge the capital offense of murder, they still stood to likewise be deprived of their right to bail
once it was shown that the evidence of guilt is strong. Petitioners could not be better off with
amended informations than with the subsequent ones. It really made no difference considering
that where a capital offense is charged and the evidence of guilt is strong, bail becomes a matter
of discretion under either an amended or a new information.
Contrary to petitioners’ submission, the absence of notice and hearing does not divest a trial
court of authority to pass on the merits of the motion. It has been held that—“The order of the
court granting the motion to dismiss despite absence of a notice of hearing, or proof of service
thereof, is merely an irregularity in the proceedings. It cannot deprive a competent court of
jurisdiction over the case. The court still retains its authority to pass on the merits of the motion.
The remedy of the aggrieved party in such cases is either to have the order set aside or the
irregularity otherwise cured by the court which dismissed the complaint or to appeal from the
dismissal and not certiorari.”