Section 9. Failure to move to quash or to allege any ground therefor. — The failure of the accused to assert any ground of a motion to quash before he pleads to the complaint or information, either because he did not file a motion to quash or failed to allege the same in said motion, shall be deemed a waiver of any objections based on the grounds provided for in paragraphs (a), (b), (g), and (i) of section 3 of this Rule. (Rule 117, Rules of Court)


▪ Here, Sec. 9 is clear that an accused must move for the quashal of the Information before entering his or her plea during the arraignment. Failure to file a motion to quash the Information before pleading in an arraignment shall be deemed a waiver on the part of the accused to raise the grounds in Sec. 3. Nevertheless, failure to move for a quashal of the Information before entering his or her plea on the grounds based on paragraphs (a), (b), (g) and (i) of Sec. 3; i.e., (1) that the facts charged do not constitute an offense; (2) that the court trying the case has no jurisdiction over the offense charged; (3) that the criminal action or liability has been extinguished; and (4) that 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, will not be considered as a waiver for the accused and the latter may still file such motion based on these grounds even after arraignment. (Gomez v. People, G.R. No. 216824. November 10, 2020)


▪ Motion to quash is proper even after the accused had been arraigned if the same is grounded on failure to charge an offense and lack of jurisdiction of the offense charged, extinction of the offense or penalty and jeopardy. (Marcos v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 124680-81, February 28, 2000)


Grounds which may be raised in a motion to quash even after arraignment:

1. Failure to charge an offense
2. Lack of jurisdiction over the offense charged
3. Extinction of the offense or penalty
4. Double jeopardy


Marcos v. Sandiganbayan
G.R. No. 124680-81, February 28, 2000 

Facts: Petitioner was charged with malversation of public funds before the Sandiganbayan. After her arraignment, she filed a motion to quash raising the following groups, namely: (a) the informations are fatally defective for failure to adequately inform the accused of the charge against her in violation of due process guaranteed by the Constitution; (b) the informations state no offense; and (c) the court has no jurisdiction over the cases because the accused are protected by immunity from suit. The Sandiganbayan denied the motion to quash even before the scheduled date of hearing thereof. Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration but the same was denied. Thus, she filed a special civil action of certiorari and prohibition before the Supreme Court.

Issue: Whether or not the Sandiganbayan acted with grave abuse of discretion in denying petitioner's motion to quash the informations filed after she had pleaded thereto

Held: A motion to quash is not improper even after the accused had been arraigned if the same is grounded on failure to charge an offense and lack of jurisdiction of the offense charged, extinction of the offense or penalty and jeopardy. In this case, petitioner's motion to quash is grounded on no offense charged and lack of jurisdiction over the offense charged. Hence, the Sandiganbayan erred in disregarding the plain provision of the Rules of Court and in cavalier fashion denied the motion.

Nevertheless, the consistent doctrine of this Court is that from a denial of a motion to quash, the appropriate remedy is for petitioner to go to trial on the merits, and if an adverse decision is rendered, to appeal therefrom in the manner authorized by law.


Bar Exam Question (2000) 

BC is charged with illegal possession of firearms under an Information signed by a Provincial Prosecutor. After arraignment but before pre-trial, BC found out that the Provincial Prosecutor had no authority to sign and file the information as it was the City Prosecutor who has such authority. During the pre-trial, BC moves that the case against him be dismissed on the ground that the Information is defective because the officer signing it lacked the authority to do so. The Provincial Prosecutor opposes the motion on the ground of estoppel as BC did not move to quash the Information before arraignment. If you are counsel for BC, what is your argument to refute the opposition of the Provincial Prosecutor? 

Suggested Answer: I would argue that since the Provincial Prosecutor had no authority to file the information, the court did not acquire jurisdiction over the person of the accused and over the subject matter of the offense charged. (Cudia v. Court of Appeals, 284 SCRA 173 [1999]). Hence, this ground is not waived if not raised in a motion to quash and could be raised at the pretrial.