Gonzales v. Salvador
NEW DOCTRINEFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Rafael Gonzales filed a complaint against respondent Glen Dale for libel, arising from an article published in the "Bizz ‘N’ Fizz" column of the Today newspaper under the nom de plume Rene Martel. The article, published on January 7, 1999, allegedly impeached the honesty, virtue, and reputation of petitioner, exposing him to public hatred, contempt, and ridicule. Procedural History: The City Prosecutor's Office found probable cause and filed an Information for libel before the Makati RTC. Respondent challenged the Resolution before the Department of Justice (DOJ), which dismissed his petition. The DOJ Resolutions were elevated to the Court of Appeals (CA) via certiorari and prohibition. While the CA did not issue injunctive relief, respondent was arraigned and pleaded not guilty. Respondent then filed a Motion to Quash the Information, arguing lack of jurisdiction due to the absence of allegations that the offended party resided in Makati or that the article was printed or first published there, citing Article 360 of the Revised Penal Code. The RTC granted the Motion to Quash, finding the Information defective. Petitioner filed a motion to order the amendment of the Information, which the RTC initially granted, directing the prosecutor to amend the Information. Respondent moved for reconsideration, arguing that an amendment was no longer permissible after the quashal had become final. The RTC granted the motion for reconsideration, setting aside its previous order. Petitioner's subsequent motion for reconsideration was denied. The CA dismissed petitioner's petition for certiorari, finding no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the RTC. The Petition: Petitioner assails the CA's decision, arguing that the appellate court erred in holding that the order to file another information was discretionary under Rule 117, Sections 4 and 5 of the Rules of Court.
Issue(s)
Whether the trial court erred in granting the motion for reconsideration and setting aside its order directing the amendment of the Information. Whether the trial court, after an order quashing an information has become final, can still order the filing of another information.
Ruling
The petition is denied. The Court of Appeals did not err in finding no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the trial court.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of amending the Information: The Court reiterated the provisions of Section 4 of Rule 117 of the Rules of Court pertaining to the amendment of a complaint or information when the defect can be cured by amendment, requiring the court to order such amendment. However, once an information is quashed and the order becomes final and executory, there is nothing left to amend. On the issue of refiling an information after quashal: The Court reiterated the provisions of Section 5 of Rule 117 of the Rules of Court, which deals with the filing of a new information when a motion to quash is sustained on grounds other than those in Section 6. In such cases, the trial court has the discretion to order the filing of another information within a specified period, which may be extended for good cause. Crucially, this order to file another information must be included in the same order granting the motion to quash. If the order sustaining the motion to quash does not contain such an order, and it becomes final, the court can no longer direct the filing of another information. The phrase "within such further time as the court may allow for good cause" in Section 5 refers to an extension of time for filing a new information pursuant to a prior order, not the period for issuing the order itself. The finality of the order quashing the information renders it immutable. The prosecution is not precluded from refiling the information, provided prescription has not set in.
Main Doctrine
Once an order granting a motion to quash an information becomes final and executory, the information can no longer be amended, and the court may no longer direct the filing of another information unless such order was included in the order granting the motion to quash.