Santiago v. People

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 238538. June 18, 2018.]

CARMENCITA G. SANTIAGO, respondent,vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedJune 18, 2018which reads as follows:

"G.R. No. 238538 — Carmencita G. Santiago v. People of the Philippines

This Court resolves to GRANT the Urgent Motion for Extension of Time to File Petition for Review on Certiorari filed by petitioner Carmencita G. Santiago seeking for an additional period of thirty (30) days from the expiration of the reglementary period on April 26, 2018 within which to file said Petition for Review on Certiorari. ASEcHI

This Court has carefully reviewed the allegations, issues, and arguments adduced in the instant Petition for Review on Certiorari and accordingly resolves to DENY the same for: (1) lack of verified statement as to the date of receipt of the assailed Resolution dated October 12, 2017 in violation of Sections 4 and 5, Rule 45 of the Rules of Court; and (2) failure to show that the Court of Appeals (CA) committed any reversible error in its October 12, 2017 and March 22, 2018 Resolutions in CA G.R. SP No. 152764.

In the instant Petition for Review on Certiorari, petitioner argues that the CA committed grave abuse of discretion when it dismissed the petition for certiorari that assailed the Decision of the Regional Trial Court (RTC). The RTC's Decision affirmed the Order of the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) that denied her Motion to Quash.

"The petition for certiorari filed by the petitioner before the RTC was an original action whose resulting decision is a final order that completely disposed of the petition." 1 Petitioner's remedy therefore was to appeal the RTC decision to the CA pursuant to Section 2, Rule 41 of the Rules of Court 2 which reads: ITAaHc

SEC. 2. Modes of appeal. —

(a) Ordinary appeal. — The appeal to the Court of Appeals in cases decided by the Regional Trial Court in the exercise of its original jurisdiction shall be taken by filing a notice of appeal with the court which rendered the judgment or final order appealed from and serving a copy thereof upon the adverse party.

"Given the plain, speedy and adequate remedy of appeal, the petitioner cannot avail of the extraordinary remedy of certiorari.3 Even on the substantive aspect, the petition for certiorari filed with the CA must fail considering the petitioner's failure to show any justifiable reason for [her] chosen mode of review." 4

In any case, the RTC did not commit grave abuse of discretion. In fact, said court is correct in affirming the MTC's denial of the Motion to Quash. 5 The MTC's denial of the Motion to Quash was consistent with the existing rules and applicable jurisprudence. The purpose of a motion to quash is to assail the validity of the Information for defects or defenses that are clear on the face of the Information. 6 Here, an examination of the Information showed that it was valid and regular on its face considering its conformity with the guidelines under Sections 6 and 11, Rule 110 of the 2000 Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure. 7

In the usual course of procedure, a denial of a motion to quash results in the continuation of the trial and the determination of the guilt or innocence of the accused. 8 If the lower court renders a judgment of conviction and the accused appeals said judgment, he can then raise the denial of his motion to quash not only as an error committed by the lower court but as an added ground to overturn the latter's ruling. 9 Thus, petitioner had no compelling reason to justify a resort to a petition for certiorari against the order of the MTC that denied her Motion to quash. CHTAIc

ACCORDINGLY, the assailed October 12, 2017 and March 22, 2018 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA G.R. SP No. 152764 are AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED." Leonardo-de Castro, J., designated as Acting Chairperson of the First Division per Special Order No. 2559 dated May 11, 2018; Gesmundo, J., designated as Acting Member of the First Division per Special Order No. 2560 dated May 11, 2018.

Very truly yours,

(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENAActing Division Clerk of Court

 

Footnotes

1.Galzote v. Briones, 673 Phil. 165, 175 (2011).

2. Id.

3.Id.

4.Id. at 176.

5.Id.

6.Id. at 174.

7.Id.

8.Id. at 172.

9.Id.