Motion to quash is proper even after the accused had been arraigned if the same is grounded on failure to charge an offense and lack of jurisdiction of the offense charged, extinction of the offense or penalty and jeopardy.

At issue is whether or not the Sandiganbayan acted with grave abuse of discretion in denying petitioner’s motion to quash the informations filed after she had pleaded thereto.

Rule 117, Section 8 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure, as amended, provides that:

“Sec. 8. Failure to move to quash or to allege any ground therefor.–The failure of the accused to assert any ground of a motion to quash before he pleads to the complaint or information, either because he did not file a motion to quash or failed to allege the same in said motion, shall be deemed a waiver of the grounds of a motion to quash, except the grounds of no offense charged, lack of jurisdiction over the offense charged, extinction of the offense or penalty and jeopardy, as provided for in paragraphs (a), (b), (f) and (h) of Section 3 of this Rule.”

Consequently, it is clear that a motion to quash is not improper even after the accused had been arraigned if the same is grounded on failure to charge an offense and lack of jurisdiction of the offense charged, extinction of the offense or penalty and jeopardy. In this case, petitioner’s motion to quash is grounded on no offense charged and lack of jurisdiction over the offense charged. Hence, the Sandiganbayan erred in disregarding the plain provision of the Rules of Court and in cavalier fashion denied the motion.

Nevertheless, the consistent doctrine of this Court is that from a denial of a motion to quash, the appropriate remedy is for petitioner to go to trial on the merits, and if an adverse decision is rendered, to appeal therefrom in the manner authorized by law.[12]

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/feb2000/124680_81.html

Advertisements

About Erineus

Born on December 28, 1965, Surallah, South Cotabato, Southern Mindanao, Philippines.
This entry was posted in Double Jeopardy, Jurisdiction, Motion to Quash, Right Against Double Jeopardy and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s