Remedy VS Denial of Motion To Quash
Remedy VS Denial of Motion To Quash
In the usual course of procedure, a denial of a motion to quash filed by an accused results in the continuation
of the trial and the determination of his guilt or innocence. If a judgment of conviction is rendered and the lower
court's decision of conviction is appealed, the accused can raise the denial of his motion to quash, not only as an
error committed by the trial court, but as an added ground to overturn the latter's ruling.[2]
Thus, a direct resort to the Supreme Court via a special civil action for certiorari is an exception rather than the
rule, and is a recourse that must be firmly grounded on compelling reasons.[3]
In meritorious cases, however, the Supreme Court has recognized certiorari as an appropriate remedy to assail
interlocutory orders, specifically pertaining to denials of motions to quash. These instances are: (a) when the
court issued the order without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion; (b) when
the interlocutory order is patently erroneous and the remedy of appeal would not afford adequate and
expeditious relief; (c) in the interest of a more enlightened and substantial justice; (d) to
promote public welfare and public policy; and (e) when the cases have attracted nationwide attention,
making it essential to proceed with dispatch in the consideration thereof.[4]
Certiorari is the appropriate remedy in grave abuse of discretion cases, if the petitioner can establish that the
lower court issued the judgment or order without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion,
and the remedy of appeal would not afford adequate and expeditious relief. The writ of certiorari serves to keep
an inferior court within the bounds of its jurisdiction or to prevent it from committing such grave abuse of
discretion amounting to excess or lack of jurisdiction, or to relieve parties from arbitrary acts of courts which
courts have no power or authority in law to perform. The burden is on the petitioner to show that the
circumstances warrant the resort to certiorari.[5]
In one case, the Supreme Court found that the RTC Pasig City acted with grave abuse of discretion in denying
accused-petitioners' motion to quash the Information which warrants the resort to the filing of a petition for
certiorari.[6]
By definition, the special civil action of certiorari, as provided for under Section 1, Rule 65 of the Rules of Court,
is an extraordinary remedy that is available only upon showing that a tribunal, board or officer exercising judicial
or quasi-judicial functions has acted without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack of excess of jurisdiction.
In Non v. Ombudsman[8], respondent judge refused to grant the Motion to Quash filed by petitioners despite the
clear wording of R.A. No. 10660 that cases falling under the jurisdiction of the RTC under Section 4, as amended,
shall be tried in a judicial region other than where the official holds office. Hence, the Supreme Court entertained
the petitioner for certiorari despite the interlocutory nature of the order of denial and proceeded with the
resolution of the legal issues presented.
[4] Id.
[6] https://www.projectjurisprudence.com/2021/08/gr-no-251177-september-08-2020.html.
[8] https://www.projectjurisprudence.com/2021/08/gr-no-251177-september-08-2020.html.