ARIEL M. LOS BAÑOS v. JOEL R. PEDRO. G.R. No. 173588. April 22, 2009.

FACTS:
Joel Pedro was charged in court for carrying a loaded firearm without authorization from the
COMELEC a day before the elections. Pedro, then filed a Motion to Quash after his Motion for
Preliminary Investigation did not materialize. The RTC granted the quash.

The RTC reopened the case for further proceedings in which Pedro objected to citing Rule 117,
Sec. 8 on provisional dismissal, arguing that the dismissal had become permanent.

The public prosecutor manifested his express conformity with the motion to reopen the case
saying that the provision used applies where both the prosecution and the accused mutually consented to
the dismissal of the case, or where the prosecution or the offended party failed to object to the dismissal
of the case, and not to a situation where the information was quashed upon motion of the accused and
over the objection of the prosecution. The RTC, thus, set Pedro’s arraignment date.

Pedro filed with the CA a petition for certiorari and prohibition to nullify the RTC’s mandated
reopening.

The CA, at first granted the reopening of the case but through Pedro's Motion for
Reconsideration, his argument that a year has passed by from the receipt of the quashal order, the CA's
decision was reversed.

Petitioner now argues using the same argument of the public prosecutor.

ISSUE:
Whether the rule on provision dismissal is applicable.

RULING:

The SC granted the petition and remanded the case to the RTC.

The SC differentiated Motion to Quash and Provisional Dismissal. Primarily, they are
two separate concepts. In Motion to Quash, the Information itself has deficiency while in
Provisional Dismissal, the Information has no deficiencies. It does not follow that a motion to
quash results in a provisional dismissal to which Section 8, Rule 117 applies.

In the case, the SC finds that the granting of the quashal of the RTC had no merit on the
ground that there is a legal excuse or justification in Pedro's offense. Pedro misappreciated the
natures of a motion to quash and provisional dismissal. As a consequence, a valid Information
still stands, on the basis of which Pedro should now be arraigned and stand trial.