"Cruz Jr. VS. Court of Appeals (194 SCRA 145)"

Facts:

Petitioner Teodoro B Cruz, Jr. raises procedural issues in this petition to review the decision of the respondent Court of Appeals in C.A-G.R SP No. 11771 dated April 29, 1988, and its resolution of June 6, 1988, denying his motion for reconsideration. The petitioner was charged before the regional trial Court of Makati, along with several others, in four separate informations for estafa thru falsification of public documents. It was alleged that the petitioner, together with Melania Guerrero, who produced a special power of attorney clamied to have been executed by the late Clemente Guerrero, had conspired with their co-accused in selling some properties of the decedent to the widow’s sister, Luz Andico, through fictitious deeds of sale notarized by the petitioner sometime in November and December of 1980. Upon arraignment on June 1, 1984, the petitioner and his co-accused entered a plea of not guilty. Subsequently, the petitioner filed a motion to dismiss on the ground that the four informations did not charge an offense. At the hearing on this motion, the petitioner submitted testimonial and documentary evidence which was not refuted by the prosecution. For its part, the prosecution submitted no evidence at all but later moved to deny the motion. The motion to dismiss was eventually denied by the trial court, as so was the subsequent motion for reconsideration. The petitioner questioned the denial of the motions before this court, which referred the case to the Court of Appeals.

Issue/s:

*Whether or not the complaint or information charges no offense.
*Whether or not there has been an abuse of discretion on the part of the Trial Judge.
*Whether or not the case against the accused must be dropped immediately if the information or complaint does not constitute an offense.
*Whether or not a motion to quash should have been filed before the petitioner and his co-accused were arraigned.

Held/Ruling:

It is axiomatic that a complaint or information must state every single fact necessary to constitute the offense charged; otherwise, a motion to dismiss/quash on the ground that it charges no offense may be properly sustained. Given the circumstances of this case, the court feels it would be unfair to shut off the prosecution at this stage of the proceedings and to dismiss the information on the basis only of the petitioner’s evidence, such as it is.

The Trial Judge did not commit grave abuse of discretion when he denied the motion to dismiss on the ground that (a.) interest of substantial justice that the prosecution could adduce evidence during the trial, and (b.) to avoid technicalities that may arise later.

It is clear that the information does not really charge an offense, the case against the accused must be dropped immediately instead of subjecting him to the anxiety and inconvenience of a useless trial. The accused is entitled to such consideration. And indeed, even the prosecution will benefit from such dismissal because it can then file a corrected information provided the accused had not yet pleaded and jeopardy has not yet attached. There is no point in proceeding under a defective information that can never be the basis of a valid conviction.

By express provision of Sec. 8 of the same rule, failure to assert certain grounds in a motion to quash filed prior to the plea does not operate as a waiver of the right to invoke them later. Even after arraignment, a motion to dismiss the information may be filed if it is based on the ground that: (a.) the information charges no offenses; (b.) the trial court has no jurisdiction; (c.) the penalty or the offense has been extinguished; and (d.) that double jeopardy has attached.

The petition is Denied. Criminal Cases Nos. 7332, 7334 and 7335 are remanded to the Regional Trial Court of Makati, Branch 145, for further proceedings.