Galvez vs.

Court of Appeals, 237 SCRA 685

G.R. No. 114046 October 24, 1994

Facts:

On November 12, 1993, petitioners Honorato Galvez, the incumbent Mayor of San Ildefonso, Bulacan, and one Godofredo Diego
were charged in three separate informations 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
Informations of the original informations. This motion was granted by Judge Villajuan also on December 15, 1993 and the cases
were considered withdrawn from the docket of the court. On the same day, Prosecutor Villa-Ignacio filed four new informations
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 informations 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
informations, 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 informations. As earlier stated, respondent court dismissed the petition in its questioned resolution of February 18, 1994, hence
this petition.

Issue:

Whether 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 informations but the
filing of four new informations, three of which charge graver offenses and the fourth, an additional offense. Had these new
informations not been filed, there would obviously have been no cause for the instant petition. Accordingly, their complaint about
the supposed procedural lapses involved in the motion to dismiss filed and granted in Criminal Cases Nos. 3642-M-93 to 3644-M-93
does not impress us as a candid presentation of their real position.

Petitioner’s contention that the dismissal of the original informations and the consequent filing of the new ones substantially
affected their right to bail is too strained and tenuous an argument. They would want to ignore the fact that had the original
informations been amended so as to charge the capital offense of murder, they still stood to likewise be deprived of their right to
bail once it was shown that the evidence of guilt is strong. Petitioners could not be better off with amended informations than with
the subsequent ones. It really made no difference considering that where a capital offense is charged and the evidence of guilt is
strong, bail becomes a matter of discretion under either an amended or a new information.

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.”