19 Galvez v. CA 237 SCRA 685

Galvez v.
CA 237 SCRA 685

Facts: On November 12, 1993, petitioners Honorato Galvez, the incumbent Mayor of San
Ildefonso, Bulacan, and one Godofredo Diego were charged in three separate information’s with
homicide and two counts of frustrated homicide for allegedly shooting to death Alvin Calma
Vinculado and seriously wounding Levi Calma Vinculado and Miguel Reyes Vinculado, Jr.
On December 15, 1993, before petitioners could be arraigned, respondent prosecutor filed
an Ex Parte Motion to Withdraw Information’s of the original information’s. This motion was
granted by Judge Villajuan on the same date and year and the cases were considered withdrawn
from the docket of the court. On the same day, Prosecutor Villa-Ignacio filed four new
information’s against herein petitioners for murder, two counts of frustrated murder, and
violation of Presidential Decree No. 1866 for illegal possession of firearms. Thereafter, a Motion
to Quash the new information’s for lack of jurisdiction was filed by petitioners before Judge
Pornillos on January 3, 1994. At the court session set for the arraignment of petitioners on
January 24, 1994, Judge Pornillos issued an order denying the motion to quash.
In the meantime, and prior to the arraignment of herein petitioners before Judge Pornillos, an
order was issued on January 20, 1994 by Judge Villajuan granting the motion for reconsideration
filed by petitioners, ordering the reinstatement of the original information’s, and setting the
arraignment of the accused therein for February 8, 1994. On said date, however, the arraignment
was suspended, and, in the meanwhile, petitioners filed a petition for certiorari, prohibition and
mandamus with respondent Court of Appeals, assailing the order dated January 24, 1994 issued
by Judge Pornillos which denied petitioners’ motion to quash filed for the new information’s. As
earlier stated, respondent court dismissed the petition in its questioned resolution of February
18, 1994, hence this petition.
Issue: WON the ex parte motion to withdraw the original informations is null and void on the
ground that there was no notice and hearing as required by Sections 4, 5 and 6, Rule 15 of the
Rules of Court.
Held: No, considering that in the original cases before Branch 14 of the trial court petitioners had
not yet been placed in jeopardy, and the ex parte motion to withdraw was filed and granted
before they could be arraigned, there would be no imperative need for notice and hearing
thereof. In actuality, the real grievance of herein accused is not the dismissal of the original three
information’s but the filing of four new information’s, three of which charge graver offenses and
the fourth, an additional offense. Had these new information’s not been filed, there would
obviously have been no cause for the instant petition.
Contrary to petitioners’ submission, the absence of notice and hearing does not divest a trial
court of authority to pass on the merits of the motion. It has been held that “The order of the
court granting the motion to dismiss despite absence of a notice of hearing, or proof of service
thereof, is merely an irregularity in the proceedings. It cannot deprive a competent court of
jurisdiction over the case. The court still retains its authority to pass on the merits of the motion.
The remedy of the aggrieved party in such cases is either to have the order set aside or the
irregularity otherwise cured by the court which dismissed the complaint or to appeal from the
dismissal and not certiorari.”
The court reiterate once again the doctrine enunciated and explained in Crespo vs.
Mogul, etc., et al "Whether the accused had been arraigned or not and whether it was due
to a reinvestigation by the fiscal or a review by the Secretary of Justice whereby a motion to
dismiss was submitted to the Court, the Court in the exercise of its discretion may grant the
motion or deny it and require that the trial on the merits proceed for the proper
determination of the case.

19 Galvez v. CA 237 SCRA 685

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

19 Galvez v. CA 237 SCRA 685

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

19 Galvez v. CA 237 SCRA 685

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Galvez v.

CA 237 SCRA 685

You might also like