Basa v. People
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: Petitioners Francisco C. Basa, Manuel H. Omeña, Mark Philip L. Basa, and Renato H. Uy were charged with swindling under Article 316, paragraph 2 of the Revised Penal Code and falsification of public document under Article 171, paragraph 4 of the same Code. The swindling charge stemmed from allegations that as corporate officers of One World Land and Properties Corporation, they approved and mortgaged a property (TCT No. 21163) to Pioneer Insurance and Surety Corporation for P60,000,000.00, falsely representing it as unencumbered, when it was actually encumbered per an agreement with Pointer Construction International Corporation. The falsification charge alleged that they caused the cancellation of TCT Nos. 210429 and 210430 and the issuance of a new TCT No. 211643, making it appear unencumbered despite the existing encumbrance, to the damage of Pointer Construction Company, Inc. 2. Procedural History: The petitioners were charged before the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC), Branch 65, Makati City. They filed a Joint Motion to Quash, which the MeTC granted, quashing the Informations. The private complainant, Ofelia Trinidad, with the Public Prosecutor's conformity, moved for reconsideration, but it was denied. On appeal, the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 65, Makati City, reversed the MeTC's order, directing the continuation of the proceedings. The petitioners' motion for reconsideration of the RTC's decision was denied. Subsequently, they filed a petition for review with the Court of Appeals, which dismissed the petition, ruling that their remedy of appeal from the RTC's decision was improper as the decision was interlocutory. The Court of Appeals denied their motion for reconsideration. 3. The Petition: The petitioners filed the instant petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, assailing the Court of Appeals' decision and resolution. They contend that their appeal by way of petition for review from the RTC's decision was proper, arguing that the RTC's reversal of the quashal order did not revert the case to its original status and that they retained the right to challenge the reversal before a higher court. The Solicitor General, in his comment, argued that the petitioners' contention lacks merit and that the crimes charged were clearly and sufficiently defined for prosecution. The core issue before the Supreme Court was whether the petitioners' appeal to the Court of Appeals was proper.
Issue(s)
Whether the RTC Decision reversing the MeTC's order quashing the Informations is final and appealable. Whether the RTC correctly denied the petitioners' motion to quash.
Ruling
The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the Decision of the Court of Appeals. The Court held that the RTC Decision reversing the MeTC's order quashing the Informations was interlocutory, not final, and therefore not appealable via a petition for review under Rule 42. The Court also agreed with the Court of Appeals that the RTC properly denied the motion to quash, finding the allegations in the Informations sufficient.
Ratio Decidendi
On the propriety of the appeal: The Court reiterated the established rule that an order denying a motion to quash on the ground that the allegations do not constitute an offense is interlocutory. Such an order does not dispose of the case completely but leaves something more to be done upon its merits, specifically, the continuation of the criminal proceedings. The accused has the right to proceed to trial, enter a plea, and if an adverse decision is rendered, to appeal therefrom in the manner authorized by law. Resorting to an appeal or a petition for review from such an interlocutory order is improper and would lead to multiplicity of appeals, delaying the administration of justice. The petitioners' recourse to a petition for review under Rule 42 of the Rules of Civil Procedure was thus incorrect because this rule contemplates appeals from final decisions or orders of the RTC in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction. On the denial of the motion to quash: The Court affirmed the RTC's finding that the allegations in the Informations were sufficient to constitute the offenses charged. The elementary rule in determining the sufficiency of a criminal Information is that the elements of the offense must be stated with reasonable certainty to enable the accused to prepare their defense. The petitioners, as movants for the motion to quash, had the burden of proof to show that certain elements of the crimes were not alleged, which they failed to do. The Court agreed with the Court of Appeals that the RTC correctly determined that the charges were substantive and comprehensive enough and that the petitioners failed to prove the absence of some elements. Any objections regarding the merits of the allegations should be raised after the trial court has rendered its verdict.
Main Doctrine
An order denying a motion to quash on the ground that the allegations in the Information do not constitute an offense is interlocutory and cannot be challenged by an appeal; the accused must proceed to trial and may appeal any adverse decision thereafter.