Motion to quash, grounds

1. The information filed against A charged more than one offense. A has not yet been arraigned. If you were
the lawyer of A, would you file a motion to quash or a motion for bill of particulars? Explain. (1996, #12)

Answer:
I would file a motion to quash on the ground that more than one offense is charged. A motion for
bill of particulars in not proper because there are no defects or details in the information that need
clarification.

2. Chato is charged with the murder of Velay. Before arraignment, you, as counsel de oficio of Chato,
discovered that the information failed to allege any qualifying circumstances.

a) How may you properly object to the insufficiency of the information, and on what
ground?
b) May you still avail of that remedy after Chato has entered her plea?
c) What course or courses of action may the court take if it sustains the remedy you
seek? (1994, #11)

Answer:
a) As counsel de oficio for the accused, I can file a motion to quash based on the ground that the
facts charged do not constitute the crime of murder there being no qualifying circumstances alleged.

b) After Chato has entered her plea, she may no longer move to quash because she is barred from
doing so.

c) If the court sustains the motion to quash, the court may order that another information be filed.
If the accused is in custody, he shall remain so unless he shall be admitted to bail. If the information is not
filed within the time specified in, or within the time specified in the order, or within such further time as
the court may allow for good cause shown, the accused, if in custody, shall be discharged therefrom,
unless he is also in custody on some other charges.

3. Magdalena Campos, a married woman and Santiago Mendoza, a married man, were indicted for
adultery in an information filed by the Prosecutor of Bataan upon a sworn complaint filed by Mrs. Cynthia
Mendoza, wife of Santiago. Both accused filed a motion to quash alleging that the trial court has not acquired
jurisdiction over the case because no complaint has been filed by the husband of Magdalena Campos. They cite
Section 5, Rule 110 of the Revised Ruled of Court which provides, among others, that the crime of adultery “… shall
not be prosecuted except upon a complaint filed by the offended spouse.” How would you resolve the motion to
quash? (1991, #12)

Answer:
Motion to quash granted. The offended spouse who should have filed the sworn complaint for
adultery was the husband of Magdalena Santos, not the wife of Santiago Mendoza. Adultery is
committed by any married woman who shall have sexual intercourse with a man not her husband and by
the man who has carnal knowledge of her knowing her to be married.

4. On January 2, 1989, Ernani purchased construction materials for his new building in Calamba, Laguna,
form a hardware store located in Batangas City and owned by Daniel. On the same date and in payment of the
materials, Ernani issued a Metrobank check (Calamba branch) for P500,000 which was drawn and signed by him in
Calamba. Daniel deposited the check with the Metrobank, Batangas City branch, but the same was dishonored for
“insufficient funds.” Despite several demands, Ernani failed to make good his check so that a case for violation of
B.P. 22 (The Bouncing Checks Law), after a preliminary investigation thereof was conducted, was filed with the
Regional Trial Court of Batangas City. Ernani moved to quash the case on the ground of lack of jurisdiction,
contending that the case should have been filed with the Regional Trial Court of Calamba, Laguna, since the check
was drawn and signed in Calamba. How would you decide the motion? Explain. (1989, #12)

Answer:
Motion to quash denied. Violation of the Bouncing Checks Law is a transitory or continuing
offense which may be validly tried either in the place where the check was issued or in the place where
the check was dishonored. Since the check in question was dishonored by the Metrobank in Batangas
City, the RTC of Batangas City has jurisdiction over the case.
 2

5. a) Give two grounds to quash an Information.

Answer:
Two grounds to quash an Information are:
a) facts charged do not constitute an offense
b) court trying the case has no jurisdiction over the offense charged or the person of the accused
c) officer who filed the information had no authority to do so
d) does not conform substantially to the prescribed form
e) more than one offense is charged except complex crimes
f) criminal action or liability has been extinguished
g) contains averments which, if true, would constitute a legal excuse or justification
h) accused has been previously convicted or in jeopardy of being convicted, or acquitted of the
offense charged.

b) If the information is not accompanied by a certificate that a preliminary investigation has been
conducted, is the Information void?(1998, #15)

Answer:
No. The certification which is provided in Section 4 Rule 112, ROCP, is not an indispensable part
of the Information.

6. An Information was filed in the proper court against Arturo charging him with theft of 300 blocks of
industrial aluminum worth P 999,000 allegedly committed “on or about the period from January 1986 to December
23, 1991.” Arturo filed a motion to quash the information on the ground that it was grossly insufficient and fatally
defective since there is such a great gap in the inclusive period of the alleged commission of the offense. He is, in
effect, being deprived of a reasonable opportunity to defend himself.
In resolving the motion to quash, what basic and ancillary rulings should the court make so that it can
extend to the accused optimum and adequate relief? Discuss fully. (1992, #7)

Answer:
The court may grant the motion to quash on the ground that the allegation of the time of
commission of the offense is defective because the period from January 1986 to December 23, 1991, or
almost six years, is too indefinite to give the accused an opportunity to prepare his defense; or the court
may order the amendment of the information or the submission of a bill of particulars so as to allege the
actual date or at least as near to it as possible in order not to surprise and substantially prejudice the
accused.