GODOFREDO ENRILE AND DR. FREDERICK ENRILE v. HON. DANILO A.

MANALASTAS
(JUDGE, RTC OF MALOLOS BULACAN, BR. VII), HON. ERANIO G. CEDILLO, SR., (AS JUDGE,
MTC OF MEYCAUAYAN, BULACAN, BR. 1) AND PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
G.R. No. 166414, 22 October 2014, FIRST DIVISION (BERSAMIN, J.)
The remedy against the denial of a motion to quash is for the movant accused to enter a plea, go to trial,
and should the decision be adverse, reiterate on appeal from the final judgment and assign as error the denial of
the motion to quash. The denial, being an interlocutory order, is not appealable, and may not be the subject of a
petition for certiorari because of the availability of other remedies in the ordinary course of law.

A mauling incident involving neighbors that transpired on January 18, 2003 outside the
house of the petitioners in St. Francis Subdivision, Barangay Pandayan, Meycauayan Bulacan gave
rise to the issue subject of the said appeal. Claiming themselves to be the victims in that mauling,
Josefina Guinto Morano, Rommel Morano and Perla Beltran Morano charged the petitioners and
one Alfredo Enrile.
The MTC issued its joint resolution whereby it found probable cause and set the arraignment
against the petitioners for less serious physical injuries. The petitioners moved for the
reconsideration of the joint resolution arguing that the complainants had not presented proof of
their having been given medical attention lasting 10 days or longer, thereby rendering their charges
of less serious physical injuries dismissible; and that the two cases for less serious physical
injuries, being necessarily related to the case of frustrated homicide still pending in the Office of the
Provincial Prosecutor, should not be governed by the Rules on Summary Procedure. However, the
MTC denied it. Thereafter, the petitioners presented a manifestation to file a motion to quash.
The MTC denied the motion to quash. Still, the petitioners sought reconsideration of the
denial of the motion to quash, but it was likewise denied. Unsatisfied, the petitioners commenced a
special civil action for certiorari before the RTC. However, the RTC dismissed the petition. The
petitioners next went to the CA via a petition for certiorari and prohibition to nullify the orders
issued by the RTC. CA promulgated its assailed resolution dismissing the petition for certiorari and
prohibition for being the wrong remedy, the proper remedy being an appeal.
Hence, this petition before the Court.
In challenging the sufficiency of the complaints, the petitioners insist that the "complaints do
not provide any evidence/s that would tend to establish and to show that the medical attendance
rendered on private complainants actually and in fact lasted for a period exceeding ten (10) days;"
and the medical certificates attached merely stated that "the probable disability period of healing is
10 to 12 days, for Josefina G. Morano, and, 12-15 days, for Perla B. Morano, hence, the findings of
the healing periods were merely speculations, surmises and conjectures. "They insist that the
"private complainants should have presented medical certificates that would show the number of
days rendered for medication considering that they filed their complaint on March 15, 2003 or
about two (2) months after the alleged incident."
Issue: Can a motion to quash be given due course on the ground that the complaints against the
petitioners clearly and patently shows that it lacks one of the essential elements of alleged crime for

less serious physical injuries? (Otherwise stated, can a motion to quash be granted on the ground of
insufficiency of evidence to prove one of the elements of an alleged crime?)
Held:
The petitioners insistence is utterly bereft of merit.
The fundamental test in determining the sufficiency of the averments in a complaint or
information is, therefore, whether the facts alleged therein, if hypothetically admitted, constitute the
elements of the offense. By alleging in their motion to quash that both complaints should be
dismissed for lack of one of the essential elements of less serious physical injuries, the petitioners
were averring that the facts charged did not constitute offenses. However, the complaints
sufficiently charged the petitioners with less serious physical injuries. Indeed, the complaints only
needed to aver the ultimate facts constituting the offense, not the details of why and how the illegal
acts allegedly amounted to undue injury or damage, for such matters, being evidentiary, were
appropriate for the trial. Hence, the complaints were not quashable.
As the MTC and RTC rightly held, the presentation of the medical certificates to prove the
duration of the victims need for medical attendance or of their incapacity should take place only at
the trial, not before or during the preliminary investigation. According to Cinco v.
Sandiganbayan, the preliminary investigation, which is the occasion for the submission of the
parties respective affidavits, counter-affidavits and evidence to buttress their separate allegations,
is merely inquisitorial, and is often the only means of discovering whether a person may be
reasonably charged with a crime, to enable the prosecutor to prepare the information. It is not yet a
trial on the merits, for its only purpose is to determine whether a crime has been committed and
whether there is probable cause to believe that the accused is guilty thereof. The scope of the
investigation does not approximate that of a trial before the court; hence, what is required is only
that the evidence be sufficient to establish probable cause that the accused committed the crime
charged, not that all reasonable doubt of the guilt of the accused be removed.
The SC agreed with the RTCs observation that "the issues raised in the motion to quash are
matters of defense that could only be threshed out in a full blown trial on the merits. Indeed, proof
of actual healing period of the alleged injuries of the private complainant could only be established
in the trial of the cases filed against herein petitioners by means of competent evidence, and to
grant the main prayer of the instant petition for the dismissal of the criminal cases against them for
less serious physical injuries is to prevent the trial court to hear and receive evidence in connection
with said cases and to render judgments thereon. x x x All things considered, it would be premature
to dismiss the subject criminal cases filed against the herein petitioners when the basis thereof
could be determined only after trial of the merits."
The petitioners chose to assail the dismissal by the RTC through petitions for certiorari and
prohibition in the CA, instead of appealing by notice of appeal. Such choice was patently erroneous
and impermissible, because certiorari and prohibition, being extraordinary reliefs to address
jurisdictional errors of a lower court, were not available to them.
[Note: A motion to quash is the mode by which an accused, before entering his plea, challenges the
complaint or information for insufficiency on its face in point of law, or for defects apparent on its face. Section 3,
Rule 117 of the Rules of Court enumerates the grounds for the quashal of the complaint or information, as
follows:
(a) the facts charged do not constitute an offense;

(b) the court trying the case has no jurisdiction over the offense charged;
(c) the court trying the case has no jurisdiction over the person of the accused;
(d) the officer who filed the information had no authority to do so;
(e) the complaint or information does not conform substantially to the prescribed form;
(f) more than one offense is charged except when a single punishment for various offenses is prescribed
by law;
(g) the criminal action or liability has been extinguished;
(h) the complaint or information contains averments which, if true, would constitute a legal excuse or
justification; and
(i) the accused has been previously convicted or acquitted of the offense charged, or the case against him
was dismissed or otherwise terminated without his express consent.]