Gonzales v. Salvador, G.R. NO. 168340, December 5, 2006


Facts:

The private respondent was charged with libel before the RTC of Makati City. After he pleaded not guilty, private respondent filed a Motion to Quash on the ground of lack of jurisdiction over the offense charged, there being no allegation in the Information that the offended party, the petitioner, actually resides in Makati or that the allegedly libelous article was printed or first published in Makati. The RTC granted the motion. 

26 days after receiving the Order, petitioner filed a Motion (to Order the Public Prosecutor to Amend the Information and to Admit said Amended Information), which was opposed to by the private respondent. The RTC granted the petitioner’s motion but, upon motion for reconsideration, reversed its order.


Issue: May the court direct the amendment or the filing of another information after its order sustaining the motion to quash becomes final and executory?


Held: The pertinent rule applicable to the present petition — Sections 4 and 5 of Rule 117 — reads:

SEC. 4. Amendment of complaint or information. – If the motion to quash is based on an alleged defect of the complaint or information which can be cured by amendment, the court shall order that an amendment be made.

If it is based on the ground that the facts charged do not constitute an offense, the prosecution shall be given by the court an opportunity to correct the defect by amendment. The motion shall be granted if the prosecution fails to make the amendment, or the complaint or information still suffers from the same defect despite the amendment.

SEC. 5. Effect of sustaining the motion to quash. – If the motion to quash is sustained, the court may order that another complaint or information be filed except as provided in section 6 of this rule. If the order is made, the accused, if in custody, shall not be discharged unless admitted to bail. If no order is made or if having been made, no new information is filed within the time specified in the order or within such further time as the court may allow for good cause, the accused, if in custody, shall be discharged unless he is also in custody for another charge.21 (Underscoring supplied)

The amendment of an information under Section 4 of Rule 117 applies if the trial court finds that there is a defect in the information and the defect can be cured by amendment, in which case the court shall order the prosecution to amend the information. Once the court issues an order granting the motion to quash the information and such order becomes final and executory, however, there is nothing more to amend.

In cases falling under Section 5 of Rule 117, where the motion to quash is sustained on grounds other than those stated in Section 6 of the same Rule, the trial court has the discretion to order the filing of another information within a specified period which is extendible to such further time as the court may allow for good cause. The order to file another information, if determined to be warranted by the circumstances of the case, must be contained in the same order granting the motion to quash. If the order sustaining the motion to quash does not order the filing of another information, and said order becomes final and executory, then the court may no longer direct the filing of another information.

Petitioner posits, however, that the order to file another information may be separately issued at any time after the quashal of the information. He anchors his argument on the clause "within such further time as the court may allow for good cause" contained in Section 5 of Rule 117.

Petitioner’s position does not lie. The clause denotes no other construction than a plain extension of time. The allowance of additional time qualifies the period of filing a new information pursuant to an order, and not the period of issuing an order to file a new information. It presupposes that an order has been previously issued, as signified by the prior phrase "if having been made." As earlier stated, this order to file another information, if the trial court finds that circumstances warrant its issuance, must be included in the order granting the motion to quash. The time limitation in the rule was intended to prevent the accused from being unnecessarily detained at the whim of the prosecution. Since the order granting the motion to quash had attained finality, it had become immutable.

Not all defects in an information can be cured by amendment, however. In Agustin v. Pamintuan, this Court held that the absence of any allegation in the information that the therein offended party was actually residing in Baguio City at the time of the commission of the alleged offense or that the alleged libelous articles were printed and first published in Baguio City is a substantial defect, which cannot be amended after the accused enters his plea. Amendments of the information to vest jurisdiction upon a court is not permissible