People v. Andrade, G.R. No. 187000 November 24, 2014


Facts:

Pursuant to the instructions of the Director of the Bureau of Corrections, a random drug test was conducted in the National Bilibid Prison (NBP). 21 out of 38 inmates, including the respondents, tested positive, resulting to the filing of charges against them for illegal use of dangerous drugs. After pleading "not guilty," the respondents filed a consolidated motion to dismiss on the ground that the facts alleged in the Information do not constitute an offense. The RTC of Muntinlupa granted the motion to dismiss but on the ground of lack of probable cause. The petioner filed a petition for certiorari before the CA but the latter affirmed the RTC's order. 


Issue #1: Whether the motion to dismiss was timely filed


Held: Under ordinary circumstances, such motion may no longer be allowed after arraignment because their failure to raise any ground of a motion to quash before they plead is deemed a waiver of any of their objections. However, since the ground asserted by respondents is Section 3(a), Rule 117 of the Rules of Court, that is, the facts alleged in the Information do not constitute an offense,  their motion to quash may be filed even after they have entered their plea pursuant to Section 9, Rule 117 of the Rules of Court which provides:

Sec. 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 except those based on the grounds provided for in paragraphs (a),(b), (g), and (i) of Section 3 of this Rule.


Issue #1: Whether the RTC judge went beyond her authority when she dismissed the cases based on lack of probable cause and not on the ground raised by respondents.

Held: Yes. The RTC judge erred when she dismissed the petition based on a ground not alleged in the motion to dismiss. 

Section 2, Rule 117 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure plainly states that in a motion to quash, the court shall not consider any ground other than those stated in the motion, except lack of jurisdiction over the offense charged. In the present case, what the respondents claim in their motion to quash is that the facts alleged in the Informations do not constitute an offense and not lack of probable cause as ruled by the RTC judge.

Moreover, Section 4, Rule 117 provides that “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”. Generally, the fact that the allegations in the information do not constitute an offense, or that the information does not conform substantially to the prescribed form, are defects curable by amendment. Thus, the RTC judge should not have outrightly dismissed the cases but should have given the prosecution the opportunity to amend the information.