Alfredo J. Non v. Office of the Ombudsman, G.R. No.

251177, September 8, 2020

Doctrine: As a rule, a denial of a motion to quash filed by an accused is not appealable, since an appeal from
an interlocutory order is not allowed under Section 1(b), Rule 41 of the Rules of Court. Neither can it be a
proper subject of a petition for certiorari, which is filed only in the absence of an appeal or any other
adequate, plain, and speedy remedy. In a denial of a motion to quash information, the plain and speedy
remedy is to proceed to trial.

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.

Facts: Believing that Resolution No. 1-2016 was a ploy to accommodate or favor the Manila Electric Company
(MERALCO) and its sister companies and enable them to bag lucrative PSAs without complying with the CSP
requirement, the Alyansa Para sa Bagong Pilipinas (ABP) filed before the Court on November 3, 2016 a
Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition (With Urgent Prayer for the Issuance of a TRO).

On September 29, 2017, the Ombudsman issued a Resolution, finding probable cause to charge petitioners
and Salazar for violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019. From this, petitioners filed a petition for certiorari
with the Court, while Salazar filed a separate petition. During the pendency of both, the Ombudsman filed a
criminal Information before the RTC of Pasig City against petitioners and Salazar for violation of Section 3(e)
of R.A. No. 3019.

The Information was docketed as Criminal Case No. R-PSG-18- 01280-CR and raffled to Branch 155 of RTC
Pasig City.

On July 12, 2018, petitioners filed a Motion to Quash dated July 11, 2018 on the ground that the RTC Pasig
City has no jurisdiction over the case pursuant to Section 2, paragraph 3 of R.A. No. 10660 which took effect in
2015.

On September 10, 2018, the RTC Pasig City issued the herein assailed Order denying petitioners' Motion to
Quash.

Petitioners' motion for reconsideration was denied on October 22, 2018.

Petitioners then filed an Urgent Motion for the Issuance of TRO or Writ of Preliminary Injunction dated
October 29, 2018 in G.R. No. 239168, seeking to restrain RTC Pasig City from hearing Criminal Case No. R-
PSG-18-01280-CR, on the ground that a prejudicial question exists in G.R. No. 227670. Petitioners also
asserted that RTC Pasig City had no jurisdiction over the offense pursuant to Section 2 of R.A. No. 10660.

Upon their arraignment on November 21, 2018 in Criminal Case No. R-PSG-18-01280-CR, the petitioners
pleaded "not guilty," and the trial court set the pre-trial conference on February 13, 2019. The initial
presentation of prosecution evidence, however, has not commenced in view of the motion filed by petitioners
to suspend proceedings.

In the meantime, the Court, on May 3, 2019, rendered its Decision in G.R. No. 227670 holding that the assailed
issuances of the ERC were void ab initio.
On September 20, 2019, petitioners filed a Motion for Leave to File Supplemental Petition and the attached
Supplemental Petition in G.R. No. 239168, arguing that respondent judge committed grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in denying their Motion to Quash

The Court granted petitioners' Motion for Leave to File Supplemental Petition in G.R. No. 239168, which was
docketed as a separate petition.

Issue: Whether or not the respondent judge gravely erred in denying the motion to quash information.

Ruling: Yes, the respondent judge erred in denying the motion to quash information because, by express
provisions of RA No. 10660, she has no jurisdiction over the criminal case as it must be tried by a Regional
Trial Court in judicial region other than in the National Capital Judicial Region.

The pertinent provision of R.A. No. 10660 reads:

SEC. 2. Section 4 of the same decree, as amended, is hereby further amended to read as follows:
SEC. 4. Jurisdiction. - The Sandiganbayan shall exercise exclusive original jurisdiction in all cases involving:
a. Violations of Republic Act No. 3019, as amended, otherwise known as the Anti-Graft and Corrupt
Practices Act, Republic Act No. 1379, and Chapter II, Section 2, Title VII, Book II of the Revised Penal
Code, where one or more of the accused are officials occupying the following positions in the
government, whether in a permanent, acting or interim capacity, at the time of the commission of the
offense:
(1) Officials of the executive branch occupying the positions of regional director and higher,
otherwise classified as Grade '27' and higher, of the Compensation and Position Classification
Act of 1989 (Republic Act No. 6758), specifically including:
(a) Provincial governors, vice-governors, members of the sangguniang
panlalawigan, and provincial treasurers, assessors, engineers, and other provincial
department heads:
(b) City mayors, vice-mayors, members of the sangguniang panlungsod, city
treasurers, assessors, engineers, and other city department heads;
(c) Officials of the diplomatic service occupying the position of consul and higher;
(d) Philippine army and air force colonels, naval captains, and all officers of higher
rank;
(e) Officers of the Philippine National Police while occupying the position of
provincial director and those holding the rank of senior superintendent and higher;
(f) City and provincial prosecutors and their assistants, and officials and prosecutors
in the Office of the Ombudsman and special prosecutor;
(g) Presidents, directors or trustees, or managers of government-owned or
controlled corporations, state universities or educational institutions or
foundations.
(2) Members of Congress . and officials thereof classified as Grade '27' and higher under the
Compensation and Position Classification Act of 1989;'
(3) Members of the judiciary without prejudice to the provisions of the Constitution;
(4) Chairmen and members of the Constitutional Commissions, without prejudice to the
provisions of the Constitution; and
(5) All other national and local officials classified as Grade '27' and higher under the
Compensation and Position Classification Act of 1989.
b. Other offenses or felonies whether simple or complexed with other crimes committed by the public
officials and employees mentioned in subsection a. of this section in relation to their office.
c. Civil and criminal cases filed pursuant to and in connection with Executive Order Nos. 1, 2, 14 and
14-A, issued in 1986.

Provided, That the Regional Trial Court shall have exclusive original jurisdiction where the
information: (a) does not allege any damage to the government or any bribery; or (b) alleges damage
to the government or bribery arising from the same or closely related transactions or acts in an
amount not exceeding One million pesos (P1,000,000.00).
Subject to the rules promulgated by the Supreme Court, the cases falling under the jurisdiction of the
Regional Trial Court under this section shall be tried in a judicial region other than where the official
holds office.

As a rule, a denial of a motion to quash filed by an accused is not appealable, since an appeal from an
interlocutory order is not allowed under Section 1(b), Rule 41 of the Rules of Court. Neither can it be a
proper subject of a petition for certiorari, which is filed only in the absence of an appeal or any other
adequate, plain, and speedy remedy. In a denial of a motion to quash information, the plain and
speedy remedy is to proceed to trial.

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.

Thus, a direct resort to this 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.

In meritorious cases, however, we have recognized certiorari as an appropriate remedy to assail

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.

In the present case, 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.

Jurisdiction is a matter of substantive law. Thus, an action may be filed only with the court or tribunal where
the Constitution or a statute says it can be brought. Objections to jurisdiction cannot be waived and may be
brought at any stage of the proceedings, even on appeal. When a case is filed with a court which has no
jurisdiction over the action, the court shall motu proprio dismiss the case.

Petition is granted. The orders of RTC Pasig City are annulled for lack of jurisdiction.