What is the remedy for a denial of a motion to quash?

● The remedy for a denial of a motion to quash is for the accused to proceed to trial and, if convicted, raise the motion's denial as an error of the court. (Jalandoni v. People, G.R. No. 211751. May 10, 2021)

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


Can the denial of a motion to quash be appealed?

● As a rule, the denial of a motion to quash is an interlocutory order and is not appealable; an appeal from an interlocutory order is not allowed under Section 1 (b), Rule 41 of the Rules of Court. (Jalandoni v. People, G.R. No. 211751. May 10, 2021)

● As a rule, the denial of a motion to quash cannot be appealed because it is merely interlocutory. An appeal from interlocutory orders is proscribed to avoid multiplicity of appeals in a single action, which inevitably results in delay. In Miranda v. Sandiganbayan:

The reason of the law in permitting appeal only from a final order or judgment, and not from interlocutory or incidental one, is to avoid multiplicity of appeals in a single action, which must necessarily suspend the hearing and decision on the merits of the case during the pendency of the appeal. If such appeal were allowed, the trial on the merits of the case should necessarily be delayed for a considerable length of time, and compel the adverse party to incur unnecessary expenses; for one of the parties may interpose as many appeals as incidental questions may be raised by him and interlocutory orders rendered or issued by the lower court. (Jalandoni v. People, G.R. No. 211751. May 10, 2021)


Can the denial of a motion to quash be of a petition for certiorari?

● As a rule, a denial of a motion to quash filed by an accused is not appealable, since an appeal from an interlocutory order is not allowed under Section 1(b), Rule 41 of the Rules of Court. Neither can it be a proper subject of a petition for certiorari, which is filed only in the absence of an appeal or any other adequate, plain, and speedy remedy. In a denial of a motion to quash information, the plain and speedy remedy is to proceed to trial.

In the usual course of procedure, a denial of a motion to quash filed by an accused results in the continuation of the trial and the determination of his guilt or innocence. If a judgment of conviction is rendered and the lower court's decision of conviction is appealed, the accused can raise the denial of his motion to quash, not only as an error committed by the trial court, but as an added ground to overturn the latter's ruling.

Thus, a direct resort to this Court via a special civil action for certiorari is an exception rather than the rule, and is a recourse that must be firmly grounded on compelling reasons.

In meritorious cases, however, we have recognized certiorari as an appropriate remedy to assail interlocutory orders, specifically pertaining to denials of motions to quash. These instances are: (a) when the court issued the order without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion; (b) when the interlocutory order is patently erroneous and the remedy of appeal would not afford adequate and expeditious relief; (c) in the interest of a more enlightened and substantial justice; (d) to promote public welfare and public policy; and (e) when the cases have attracted nationwide attention, making it essential to proceed with dispatch in the consideration thereof.

Certiorari is the appropriate remedy in grave abuse of discretion cases, if the petitioner can establish that the lower court issued the judgment or order without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion, and the remedy of appeal would not afford adequate and expeditious relief. The writ of certiorari serves to keep an inferior court within the bounds of its jurisdiction or to prevent it from committing such grave abuse of discretion amounting to excess or lack of jurisdiction, or to relieve parties from arbitrary acts of courts which courts have no power or authority in law to perform. The burden is on the petitioner to show that the circumstances warrant the resort to certiorari. (Non v. Office of the Ombudsman, G.R. No. 251177, September 08, 2020)

● However, if the denial was rendered with grave abuse of discretion, the accused may assail it in a petition for certiorari. It would be unfair for the accused to undergo trial "if the court has no jurisdiction over the subject matter or offense, or is not the court of proper venue, or if the denial of the motion to dismiss or motion to quash is made with grave abuse of discretion or a whimsical and capricious exercise of judgment." In these cases, the ordinary remedy of appeal is not plain and adequate. (Jalandoni v. People, G.R. No. 211751. May 10, 2021)