Sasot vs People.pdf - 8/29/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS...

This preview shows page 1 - 3 out of 13 pages.

8/29/2020SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 4621/13138SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATEDSasot vs. PeopleG.R. No. 143193. June 29, 2005.*MELBAROSE R. SASOT and ALLANDALE R. SASOT,petitioners, vs.PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, THEHONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, and REBECCA G.SALVADOR, Presiding Judge, RTC, Branch 1, Manila,respondents.Remedial Law; Criminal Procedure; Certiorari; A special civilaction for certiorari is not the proper remedy to assail the denial ofa motion to quash an information.—The Court has consistentlyheld that a special civil action for certiorariis not the properremedy to assail the denial of a motion to quash an information.The proper procedure in such a case is for the accused to enter aplea, go to trial without prejudice on his part to present thespecial defenses he had invoked in his motion to quash and, ifafter trial on the merits, an adverse decision is rendered, toappeal therefrom in the manner authorized by law. Thus,petitioners should not have forthwith filed a special civil actionfor certiorariwith the CA and instead, they_______________*SECOND DIVISION.139VOL. 462, JUNE 29, 2005139Sasot vs. Peopleshould have gone to trial and reiterate the special defensescontained in their motion to quash.Same; Same; Same; Grounds for quashing an informationenumerated in Section 3, Rule 117 of the 1985 Rules of Criminal
8/29/2020SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 4622/13Procedure.—Section 3, Rule 117 of the 1985 Rules of CriminalProcedure, which was then in force at the time the allegedcriminal acts were committed, enumerates the grounds forquashing an information, to wit: a) That the facts charged do notconstitute an offense; b) That the court trying the case has nojurisdiction over the offense charged or the person of the accused;c) That the officer who filed the information had no authority todo so; d) That it does not conform substantially to the prescribedform; e) That more than one offense is charged except in thosecases in which existing laws prescribe a single punishment forvarious offenses; f) That the criminal action or liability has beenextinguished; g) That it contains averments which, if true, wouldconstitute a legal excuse or justification; and h) That the accusedhas been previously convicted or in jeopardy of being convicted, oracquitted of the offense charged.Same; Pleadings and Practice; Complaints; Even the absenceof an oath in the complaint does not necessarily render it invalid;Want of oath is a mere defect of form which does not affect thesubstantial rights of the defendant on the merits.—Under Section3, Rule 112 of the 1985 Rules of Criminal Procedure, a complaintis substantially sufficient if it states the known address of therespondent, it is accompanied by complainant’s affidavit and hiswitnesses and supporting documents, and the affidavits are swornto before any fiscal, state prosecutor or government officialauthorized to administer oath, or in their absence or

Upload your study docs or become a

Course Hero member to access this document

Upload your study docs or become a

Course Hero member to access this document

End of preview. Want to read all 13 pages?

Upload your study docs or become a

Course Hero member to access this document

Term
Fall
Professor
Atty. Zamora
Tags
criminal law, Supreme Court of the United States, Lawyer

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture