Rule 117 - Motion to Quash ➢ Lack of jurisdiction over offense charged Commented [YH1]: Criminal counterpart of motion to

Motion to quash must be filed prior to arraignment, generally. ➢ Extinctions of the offense/penalty dismiss.

➢ Defendant would be placed in double jeopardy.

• Special pleading filed by the defendant before entering his plea,
which hypothetically admits the truth of the facts spelled out in Right to file a motion to quash belongs only to the accused;
the complaint or information at the same time that it sets up a nothing in the rules authorizes the court or judge to motu propio
matter which, if approved, would preclude further proceedings. initiate a motion to quash.
➢ The test in determining the sufficiency of the material Unless ground relied on is lack of jurisdiction
averments in an information is whether or not the facts alleged
therein, which are hypothetically admitted, would establish Quashal vs Nolle Prosequi – both will result to the dismissal of the case Commented [YH2]: If the information states that A
the essential elements of the crime defined by law borrowed money from B, and b demanded the amount
of 100,00 which was the amount borrowed, no payment
General Rule - other facts such as matters of defense, which are not in the • Nolle Prosequi - dismissal of the case by the govt before the made by A. and if A hypothetically admits those facts
information, should not be. accused is placed on trial before he is called to plead, with the that he borrowed the money from B and despite
repeated demands, he still did not pay, then there is no
approval of the court in the exercise of its judicial discretion; not crime charged in the information since it does not
Ibig sabihin, be very specific on the grounds when you file a motion to an acquittal, not final disposition of the case, does not bar charge an offense.

quash. If you do not allege the ground, the court will not consider it. subsequent prosecution for the same offense.
Exceptions – when the grounds invoked to quash the information are as An instance wherein the prosecution will ask the court for the withdrawal
follows, additional facts are allowed. of the information before arraignment, if the court agrees then it is
➢ Extinction of criminal liability possible.
➢ Prescription
➢ Former jeopardy General Rule
Additional facts not alleged in the information but ➢ Filing pleadings seeking affirmative relief, such as motion to quash,
admitted/not denied by the prosecution may be invoked require voluntary appearance/surrender, and the consequent
in support of the motion to quash submission of one’s person to the jurisdiction of the court.
When Motion to Quash Filed – ➢ Questions on the jurisdiction of the accused are deemed waived
General rule: any time before entering plea, accused may move to quash when he files any pleading seeking an affirmative relief.
the complaint or information Exception - In case pleadings whose prayer is precisely for the avoidance
Exceptions - instances where motion may be filed after plea: of the jurisdiction of the court, which leads to a special appearance and
➢ Failure to charge an offense
does not need to submit one’s person to the jurisdiction of the court such Exception: Motion to Quash based on lack jurisdiction which may be raised
as: or considered by the court motu propio.
➢ Motion to quash a complaint or information on the ground of lack
of jurisdiction over the person of the accused. ➢ A motion to suspend the issuance of a warrant of arrest should be
➢ Motions to quash a warrant of arrest. considered as a motion to quash if the allegations therein are to
the effect that the facts charged in the information do not
If these are the grounds that you are submitting then it is not a voluntary constitute an offense.
submission to the jurisdiction of the court because these are not
considered as special appearances as the very purpose of these motions is Grounds for Motion to Quash
to question the jurisdiction of the court. ➢ These grounds under rule 117 sec 3 are exclusive in character. It
was held that lack of preliminary investigation is not a ground for
Consequence of the fact that the very legality of the court process forcing motion to quash; not only because it is not stated by the rule as
the submission of the person of the accused which is questioned. one of the grounds, but also because lack of preliminary
investigation does not impair the validity of the information, does
Motion to quash shall be: not otherwise render it defective, and does not affect the
➢ In writing jurisdiction of the court over the case.
➢ Signed by the accused or his counsel;
➢ Shall distinctly specify its factual and legal grounds; A. That the facts charged do not constitute an offense.
▪ Specify the legal grounds, because if not alleged, it will ➢ The complaint must show on its face that if the facts alleged are
generally not be considered. true, an offense has been committed. It must state explicitly and
Thereafter, no motion to quash can be entertained by the directly every fact and circumstance necessary to constitute an
court except under circumstances mentioned in Section 8 offense
(now 9) of rule 117 which adopts the omnibus motion. A motion to quash on the ground that the allegations of the
The court shall consider no ground other than those stated information do not constitute the offense charged, or any
in the motion, except lack of jurisdiction over offense offense for that matter should be resolved on the basis alone
charged and when the information does not charge an of said allegations whose truth and veracity are hypothetically
offense. admitted.
The court will not quash a complaint/information on a
ground not cited.
 The test to determine whether or not all the essential elements of Requiring a handling prosecutor to secure a prior written
the crime have been alleged. In this examination, matter aliunde authority or approval from the provincial, city, or chief state Commented [YH3]: Found outside of the information
are not considered prosecutor before filing an information with the courts, may not alleged in the information.

The fact that the allegations in the complaint/information are be waived by the accused through silence, acquiescence, or
vague or broad is not a ground for motion to quash, but for bill of failure to raise such ground during arraignment/before
particulars. entering a plea.
E. It does not conform substantially to the prescribed form
B. The court trying the case has no jurisdiction over the offense ➢ Rule 110, Sec. 13 - duplicitous information
charged. ➢ Rule 110 - state the time, place, name, etc.
C. The court trying the case has no jurisdiction over the person of ➢ Rule 112 - no certification that the prosecutor conducted a
the accused preliminary investigation, and that the other party was given the
a. No jurisdiction on subject matter (the power to adjudge chance to be heard
concerning the general question involved) It is sufficient if the complaint or information states the
b. No territorial jurisdiction essential elements which constitute the offense as required in
c. No jurisdiction over person of the accused. the statute and it is not necessary to follow the exact language
of the statute
All types of jurisdictions are covered. Considered as jurisdiction over the If such formal defects are properly and opportunity raised, an
subject matter, which is the power to adjudge concerning the general amendment of the complaint or information may be ordered
questions involved. by the court under rule 117, sec 4.
It depends upon the nature of the ground relied on for the motion to quash.
D. Officer who filed the information had no authority to do so.
It shall only be the prosecutor who can file the information before F. That more than one offense is charged except when a single
the court. punishment for various offenses is prescribed by law
➢ Ex. Filed by clerk of court, information filed without signature of ➢ Duplicitous information is ground to quash
offended party in ACASA~L General rule - complaint/information must charge 1 offense; 1 crime = 1
➢ What if filed without approval of the chief prosecutor? - not information; if multiple counts, file for motion to consolidate
jurisdictional and is waivable. Meaning, if you did not object to the Exception - law prescribes a single punishment for various (complex crime:
defect, then considered waived. estafa through falsification, special complex crimes, continuing crimes) the
law only considers it as one offenses/crime.
 for the fiscal/prosecution to file the information on the last
If multiple counts, file for a Motion to Consolidate working day before the criminal offense prescribes.
➢ Absorption principle/ Hernandez Principle - acts committed in
furtherance of rebellion through crimes in themselves are deemed H. It contains averments, which, if true, would constitute a legal
absorbed in the single crime of rebellion. The test whether or not excuse/justification
the act was done in furtherance of a political end. The political ➢ Justifying or exempting circumstances are alleged in the
motive of the act should be conclusively demonstrated. Even if information
they committed multiple crimes, there will only be one crime that ❖ Ex. the accused was insane when he stabbed the
will be filed in court. victim
If failed to object motion to quash – waived. I. The accused has been previously convicted or acquitted of the
❖ Accused may be convicted as the number as the offense charged, or the case against him was dismissed or
counts stated in information otherwise terminated without his express consent
G. The criminal action/liability has been extinguished ➢ Rule 117 sec. 7 - double jeopardy
Based on the grounds provided for under the law
➢ Article 89 of the RPC Amendment of the complaint/information
i. Death of convict ➢ The court shall order that an amendment be made:
ii. Service of the sentence ▪ If the motion to quash is based on an alleged defect of the
iii. Amnesty, which completely extinguishes the complaint or information which can be cured by amendment Commented [YH4]: public act, usually for political
penalty and all its effects ▪ If based on the ground that the facts charged do not constitute crimes, granted at any time/stage of the trial

iv. Absolute pardon an offense, the prosecution shall be an opportunity to correct Commented [YH5]: private act of the president,
v. Prescription of the crime the defect. extended to a particular person. Does not fully
extinguish the acts and its effect but only extinguish the
vi. Prescription of the penalty Certain instances wherein you file for a motion to quash and it is penalty, can only be granted after conviction.
vii. Marriage of the offended woman, as provided in proper, the court will not automatically quash the information. It
article 344 of the RPC will first give the prosecution to correct/amend the information.
✓ Ex. in cases of rape; if victim marries (example: chief prosecutor did not sign the information, the court
suspect. will direct the prosecution to comply).
Where the last day of the prescriptive period for filing an ❖ If within 5 days, the prosecutor submits the
information is a Sunday/legal holiday, the information can amended document, there is no longer a ground
no longer be filed on the next working day. The remedy is to quash.
 ✓ If exceeding 5 days/no signature from made, no new information within the time specified in the
superior/defective despite time, it is a order or within such further time as the court may allow
ground to quash for good cause, the accused, if in custody, shall be
➢ If it is based on the ground that the facts charged do not constitute discharged unless he is also in custody for another charge.
an offense, the prosecution shall be given an opportunity to • If the ground of the motion to quash is any of the following:
correct the defect ➢ The facts charged do not constitute an offense
▪ Amendment is a matter is right because it is before ➢ The officer who filed the information had no authority to
arraignment. do so
The motion shall be granted if the prosecution fails to ➢ It does not conform substantially to the prescribed form
make the amendment or if the complaint/information still ➢ That more than one offense is charged
suffers from the same defect despite the amendment. ❖ The court may order that another information
❖ “Generally, a defect pertaining to the failure of an may be filed or an amendment thereof be made,
information to charge facts constituting an as the case may be, within a definite period
offense is one that may be corrected by an If such order is made, and the accused is in custody, he
amendment. In such instances, courts are shall not be discharged unless admitted to bail
mandated not to automatically quash the • If the ground of the motion to quash is any of the following:
information, rather, it should grant the ➢ The criminal action or liability has been extinguished
prosecution the opportunity to cure the defect ➢ It contains averments, which, if true, would constitute a legal
through an amendment. This rule allows a case to excuse or justification, or
proceed without undue delay. By allowing the ➢ The accused has been previously convicted or acquitted of the
defect to be cured by simple amendment, offense charged
unnecessary appeals based on technical grounds, ❖ Then, the court must state, in its order granting
which only result in prolonging the proceedings, the motion, the release of the accused if he is in
are avoided.” custody or the cancellation of his bond if he is on
If the motion to quash is sustained, the court may order bail.
that another complaint or information be filed, except as If these are the grounds relied upon for the motion to quash, then there will
provided in section 6 of this rule. If the order is made, the be no need for amended information as it can no longer be cured.
accused, if in custody, shall not be discharged unless If the ground of the motion of quash was sustained is that
admitted to bail. If no order is made or if having been the court has no jurisdiction over the offense, the better
 practice is for the court to remand or forward the case to ➢ An order denying a motion to quash is interlocutory and not
the proper court, not to quash the complaint/information. appealable. Appeal in due time, as the proper remedy, implies a
Procedure if Motion to Quash is denied (cannot be dismissed as there is previous conviction as a result of trial on the merits of the case and
no valid ground). does not apply to an interlocutory order denying a motion to
1. Accused will be arraigned quash.
2. Accused should go to trial without prejudice to the special ➢ If the court, in denying the motion to quash, acts without or in
defenses he invoked in the motion excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion, then
3. Appeal from the judgement of conviction, if any, and certiorari or prohibition will lie. The reason is that it would be
interpose the denial of the motion as an error. unfair to require the accused to undergo the ordeal and expense
of a trial if the court has no jurisdiction over the subject matter or
Effect of Sustaining the Motion to Quash offenses, or is not the court of proper venue, or if the denial of the
1. Denial of MTQ motion to quash is made with grave abuse of discretion or a
a. Nature - interlocutory order whimsical and capricious exercise of judgement. Commented [YH6]: Order of the court which does not
b. Remedy - appeal after trial since final order lang ang ❖ If the motion to quash is granted, the order to that terminate/dispose the case with finality. The denial does
not mean na tapos na ang kaso.
subject to an appeal. effect is a final order, not merely interlocutory,
Commented [YH7R6]: Not subject to an appeal.
c. Consequence - arraignment of the accused and is therefore, appealable at once.
d. Appealable - not appealable absent a showing of grave The accused would not be placed in double jeopardy
abuse of discretion. If there is grave abuse of discretion, because there is no arraignment yet and the dismissal was
file a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 (not looking into obtained with his express consent.
the merits but the partiality of the judge/ biased or ➢ The question is to be passed upon by the appellate court is purely
prejudiced). legal so that should be quashal be found incorrect, the case would
2. Grant of MTQ have to be remanded of the court of origin for further proceedings
a. Nature - final order (disposes/ dismisses the case) to determine the guilt or innocence of the accused. Once you
b. Remedy - appeal the order appeal it, kasi na quash, mag he-hearing ulit.
c. Consequence - amendment of information if practicable
d. Appealable - immediately appealable but subject to Order sustaining the motion to quash not a bar to another prosecution;
double jeopardy exception
 ➢ An order sustaining the motion to quash is not a bar to another ▪ The first sentence refers to the protection against double
prosecution for the same offense unless the motion was based on jeopardy of punishment for the same offense.
the grounds specified in section 3 (g) and (i) of this rule ▪ The second sentence refers to the protection against double
▪ (g) that the criminal liability has been extinguished; jeopardy of punishment for the same act. There is already an
▪ (i) double jeopardy acquittal/conviction. Covers national law or municipal/city
ordinance.
Former conviction or acquittal; double jeopardy ▪ Sec. 7 of Rule 117 covers the first paragraph of Sec. 21 Art. III
➢ Jeopardy - the peril which a person is put when he is regularly of the 1987 Constitution
charged with a crime before a tribunal properly organized and ❖ Covers national law AND municipal/city ordinance
competent to try him. Risk of being open to penalty. Ex. People vs. Relova (148 SCRA 292)
➢ Double Jeopardy - when a person is charged with an offense and ➢ Charged with theft of electricity under the RPC.
the case is terminated either by acquittal or conviction or in any ➢ Also charged with making electrical connection without a permit
other manner without the express consent of the accused, the under the ordinance.
latter cannot again be charged with the same or identical offense. ▪ There is double jeopardy; the purpose of installing illegal
The doctrine of double jeopardy has been referred to as connection is to steal electricity, which is also theft
“res judicata in prison grey”. The ordeal of a criminal
prosecution is inflicted only once, not whenever it pleases Elements of Double Jeopardy
the state to do so. 1. The first jeopardy must have attached prior to the second.
❖ Res judicata in prison grey - the criminal law Meaning, the first jeopardy is valid.
concept of double jeopardy. Double jeopardy, a a. Court of competent jurisdiction
criminal aspect, which means that a case has been b. Valid complaint/information
previously tried. i. It charges an offense
ii. Filed by a person authorized to do so
➢ Sec. 21, Art. III of the 1987 Constitution c. Arraignment under the valid complaint/information
▪ No person shall be twice put in jeopardy of punishment for the d. Valid plea.
same offense.
▪ If an act is punished by law and an ordinance, conviction or Example: BP 22 cases filed in RTC, is there a valid jeopardy?
acquittal under either shall constitute a bar to another No. coz lacking ang court of competent jurisdiction.
prosecution for the same act.
 If the sub-requirements are not present, then the first jeopardy Dismissed - not based on merits but most likely on technicality; does
is not validly attached. not decide the case on the merits or that the defendant is not guilty
2. The first jeopardy must have been validly terminated. (Bonafe vs. Zurbano, 31 July 1984)
a. The accused was previously acquitted, or Exception - Demurrer to Evidence and Invocation of Right to
b. The accused was previously convicted, or Speedy Trial
c. The case was dismissed or otherwise terminated without ❖ Even if the decision of acquittal was erroneous, the prosecution
the express consent of the accused. If with the express still cannot appeal the decision as it would put the accused in
consent of the accused, double jeopardy will not attach. double jeopardy
i. Exception - invocation of right to speedy trial. ▪ No grave abuse of discretion may be attributed to a court
ii. Exception to exception - prosecution denied of simply because of its alleged misapplication of facts and
due process. evidence and erroneous conclusions based on said evidence.
➢ Denial of due process on the part of the prosecution Certiorari will issue only to correct errors of jurisdiction, not
▪ Court decision is null and void errors or mistakes in the findings and conclusions of the trial
Gorreon vs. RTC of Cebu (213 SCRA 138) court. (Rebuta vs. People, 26 July 2023)
❖ Petition for certiorari under Rule 65 for grave
abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of ➢ Express consent has been defined as that which is directly given
jurisdiction by the trial court either viva voce or in writing. It is a positive, direct, unequivocal
❖ The mere filing of two information charging the consent requiring no inference or implication to supply its meaning
same offense is not an appropriate basis for the (People vs. Lacson, 07 October 2003). Double jeopardy will not
invocation of double jeopardy since the first attach except if the ground is speedy trial.
jeopardy has not yet been set in by previous Exception to the exception: violation of due process on the part of
conviction, acquittal, or termination of the case the prosecution.
without the consent of the accused (People vs. ➢ Filing Motion for Reinvestigation is not express consent (People vs.
Pineda 219 SCRA I). Vergara, 221 SCRA 960). Double jeopardy already attached

Convicted - found guilty beyond reasonable doubt General Rule - a dismissal with the express consent of the accused will not
Acquitted - found not guilty based on the merits of the case bar the prosecution of the same offense because such consent is
➢ The defendant is acquitted because the evidence does not show considered a valid waiver of his right against double jeopardy (People vs.
the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Based on merits. Salico, 12 October 1949)
Exception - when a dismissal, even with the express consent of the a. The graver offense developed due to supervening facts arising
accused, is tantamount to acquittal such as: from the same act or omission constituting the former charge;
d. Dismissal based on a demurrer to evidence (insufficiency (supervening facts). It happened after arraignment, which change Commented [YH8]: A pleading filed by the defense,
of evidence given by prosecution) filed by the accused the nature of the crime (from frustrated to consummated murder). after the prosecution rested its case. Defense/accused
is telling the court, that the evidence presented is not
after the prosecution has rested; Melo Doctrine able to sustain a conviction, all elements are not met.
e. Dismissal due to denial of the accused's right to speedy b. The facts constituting the graver charge became known or were Commented [YH9R8]: If granted, case will be
trial and disposition of the case (Condrada vs. People, 28 discovered only after a plea was entered in the former dismissed. This is an express consent tantamount to an
acquittal. Double jeopardy will attach.
February 2003) complaint/information; (newly discovered facts) or.
Commented [YH10R8]: But if you filed for a demurrer
3. The second jeopardy must be for the same offense as that of the c. The plea of guilty to the lesser offense was made without the to evidence with a leave of court, and the court says
first information. consent of the prosecutor and of the offended party except as there is a sufficient evidence, demurrer is denied, you
can still present your evidence.
✓ Or the second offense includes is provided in section 1(f) of Rule 116 (invalid plea-bargaining
necessarily included in the offense charge agreement) But if you filed this motion without a leave of court or
judge did not permit, and the court denies due to
in the first information, or is an attempt to sufficiency of evidence, that will be a waiver on the part
commit the same/frustration thereof. Additional Exceptions to Double Jeopardy of the defense to present their evidence.
a. If a single act is punishable by two different provisions of 1. There has been deprivation of due process Commented [YH11]: Happened after arraignment
law or statutes, but each provision requires proof of an 2. There is finding of a mistrial however, the defense‘s theory will stay the same

additional fact which the other does not require, neither 3. There has been a grave abuse of discretion under exceptional
conviction nor acquittal in one will bar a prosecution circumstances
(Perez vs. Court of Appeals, 29 November 1988). If the
elements of the crime are different then, it will not be a bar
for a prosecution. It will not lead to double jeopardy.

Test for Determining whether the 2 offenses are identical

1. Is exactly the same as the first
2. Is an attempt to or frustration of the first
3. Is necessarily included in the first
4. Necessarily includes the first and is necessarily included in the
offense charged in the first information
Exceptions to Double Jeopardy (4th Test)
 Q. What date should the one-year period to revive a provisionally
dismissed case be reckoned from?
Answer: Since the period for filing a motion to revive is reckoned from
the private counsel’s receipt of the order or provisional dismissal, it
necessarily follows that the reckoning period for the permanent dismissal
is likewise the private counsel’s date of receipt of the order of provisional
dismissal (Co vs. New Prosperity Plastic Products, 30 June 2014)

➢ The case may be revived or re-filed even beyond the prescribed

periods subject to the right of the accused to oppose the same on
the ground of double jeopardy or that such revival or re-filing is
barred by the statute of limitations (People vs. Lacson, 07 October
2003).
Provisional Dismissal
➢ A case shall not be provisionally dismissed except: Failure to Move to Quash or to allege any ground therefore Commented [YH12]: Na dismiss pero hindi totally,
1. With the express consent (para hindi mag attach ang ➢ Effect if person does not file motion to quash before plea? pwede pang i-revive.

double jeopardy) of the accused, and ▪ He/she waives the grounds for quashal, except:
2. With notice to the offended party o Lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter (Sec. 3[a]);
➢ The provisional dismissal of offenses punishable by o The information does not charge an offense (Sec. 3[b]);
imprisonment not exceeding six (6) years or a fine of any o The criminal liability has already been extinguished (Sec.
amount, or both, shall become permanent one (1) year after 3[g];
issuance of the order without the case having been revived. o Double jeopardy (Sec. 3[i]);
Mostly MTC cases and within 1 year hindi na revive, then it will If based on these 4 grounds, it can still be raised after
be permanently dismissed. plea.
➢ With respect to offenses punishable by imprisonment of more
than six (6) years, their provisional dismissal shall become
permanent two (2) years after issuance of the order without the
case having been revived. Permanently dismissed.