Você está na página 1de 1

Fenequito v Vergara courts, municipal circuit trial courts and the regional trial courts.

Motion to Quash | 18 July, 2012 | Peralta, J.


Nature of Case: RULING:
Digest maker: WHEREFORE, the instant petition is DENIED. The Resolutions of the Court of Appeals, dated March
SUMMARY: An Information was filed against herein petitioners with the MeTC of Manila. It was 9, 2006 and May 22, 2006 in CA-G.R. CR No. 29648, are AFFIRMED.
dismissed, however, for lack of probable cause. Appealed to the RTC, they ruled that there was
indeed probable cause and that the prosecution should begin presenting its evidence. Herein PROVISIONS
petitioners assailed the decision to the CA, but the CA dismissed the same because of: 1) the Section 2, Rule 42 of the Rules of Court: Form and contents.—The petition shall be filed in seven (7)
insufficiency of the appeal’s form; and 2) because appeals are general not granted for interlocutory legible copies, with the original copy intended for the court being indicated as such by the petitioner,
orders and shall x x x (d) be accompanied by clearly legible duplicate originals or true copies of the judgments
or final orders of both lower courts, certified correct by the clerk of court of the Regional Trial Court,
FACTS: the requisite number of plain copies thereof and of
 On February 11, 2004, an Information for falsification of public documents was filed with
the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) of Manila by the Assistant City Prosecutor of Manila Section 3, Rule 42 of the Rules of Court: Effect of failure to comply with requirements.—The failure
against herein petitioners. of the petitioner to comply with any of the foregoing requirements regarding the payment of the
 On April 23, 2004, herein petitioners filed a Motion to Dismiss the Case Based on Absence docket and other lawful fees, the deposit for costs, proof of service of the petition, and the contents of
of Probable Cause. and the documents which should accompany the petition shall be sufficient ground for the dismissal
 After respondent’s Comment/Opposition was filed, the MeTC issued an Order dated July thereof.”
9, 2004 dismissing the case on the ground of lack of probable cause.
 Aggrieved, respondent, with the express conformity of the public prosecutor, appealed the Section 35 (l), Chapter 12, Title III of Book IV of the Administrative Code of 1987: Mandates the
case to the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila. OSG to represent “the Government in the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals in all criminal
 On July 21, 2005, the RTC rendered judgment setting aside the July 9, 2004 Order of the proceedings.”
MeTC and directing the said court to proceed to trial.
 Petitioners then elevated the case to the CA via a petition for review, the resolution being Section 11 of Presidential Decree No. 1275, entitled “Reorganizing the Prosecution Staff of the
the dismissal of the petition. Department of Justice and the Offices of the Provincial and City Fiscals, Regionalizing the
Prosecution Service, and Creating the National Prosecution Service”: Provides that the provincial or
 Decision of the RTC is interlocutory in nature and therefore not appealable.
the city fiscal (now referred to as prosecutor) “shall have charge of the prosecution of all crimes,
ISSUE/S & RATIO: misdemeanors and violations of city or municipal ordinances in the courts of such province or city and
1. WON the Court of Appeals erred in outrightly dismissing the Petition for Review on the shall therein discharge all the duties incident to the institution of criminal prosecutions.”
ground that the remedy availed of by petitioners is improper. NO
- One of the grounds relied upon by the CA in dismissing petitioners’ petition for review NOTES:
Final order - one that which disposes of the whole subject matter or terminates a particular proceeding
is the latter’s failure to submit copies of pleadings and documents relevant and
or action, leaving nothing to be done but to enforce by execution what has been determined.
pertinent to the petition filed, as required under Section 2, Rule 42 of the Rules of Court.
While petitioners filed a Motion for Reconsideration, they, however, failed to comply
Interlocutory order – one that does not dispose of a case completely, but leaves something more to be
with these requirements.
done upon its merits.
- It is a settled rule that the right to appeal is neither a natural right nor a part of due
process; it is merely a statutory privilege, and may be exercised only in the manner and
Probable cause – for the purpose of filing a criminal information, it has been defined as such facts as
in accordance with the provisions of law.
are sufficient to engender a well-founded belief that a crime has been committed and that respondent
2. WON strict enforcement of the Rules may be suspended whenever the purposes of justice
is probably guilty thereof
so require. NO
- This Court generally frowns upon this remedial measure as regards interlocutory
orders.
 In the present case, the assailed Decision of the RTC set aside the Order of the
MeTC and directed the court a quo to proceed to trial by allowing the prosecution
to present its evidence.
 Assuming that the remedy of petitioners is proper, there are no just and
compelling reasons to warrant the relaxation of the rules in the interest of
substantial justice.
 The fact that an expert witness already found that the questioned signatures were
not written by one and the same person already creates probable cause to indict
petitioners for the crime of falsification of public document.
- Re: respondent’s legal personality
 It is wrong for petitioners to argue that it is the OSG which has authority to file
an appeal with the RTC.
 In consonance with the above-quoted provision, it has been held by this Court
that the fiscal represents the People of the Philippines in the prosecution of
offenses before the trial courts at the metropolitan trial courts, municipal trial

Você também pode gostar