LOPEZ v.

CITY JUDGE
Oct 29, 1966 | Dizon, J. | Petition for Certiorari | Quashal

PETITIONER: Angelina Mejia-Lopez, Aurora Mejia-Villasor, Roy Villasor (administrator of the intestate estate)
RESPONDENT: The City Judge, Cesar Paras, Trinidad Lazatin and Terra Development

SUMMARY: Petitioners are charged in the City Court of Angeles with the offense of falsification of a private document. They
filed a motion to quash on the ground of lack of jurisdiction since the alleged falsification was committed either in Makati or QC,
not in Angeles City. The Court ruled in favor of petitioners.

DOCTRINE: The motion to quash provided for in Rule 117 is manifestly broader in scope than the demurrer, as it is not limited to
defects apparent upon the face of the complaint or information but extends to issues arising out of extraneous matters which
necessarily involve questions of fact in the determination of which a preliminary trial is required.

NOTE: We already took up this case before, so for the other pertinent issue of this case re: Venue and jurisdiction of the Angeles
City Court, see the digest under "Venue".

FACTS:
1.Petitioners entered into a contract with respondent Lazatin for the development and subdivision of 3 parcels of land belonging to the
intestate estate of spouses Mejia and Lazatin.
2. Lazatin transferred his rights under the contract to Terra Development Corp., one of the respondents.
3. Petitioners and co-heirs filed an action in CFI of QC for the rescission of the contract for alleged gross and willfull violation of its
terms.
4. Lazatin and Terra Dev't Corp. filed with the City Fiscal of Angeles a complaint against petitioners for alleged violation of RPC Art
172 in relation to Art. 171 par 4. After preliminary investigation, the Fiscal filed with the Angeles Court an information charging
petitioner of falsification of a private document for allegedly making it appear that Aurora was the guardian of the minor George
Mejia and Angelina was the guardian of the minor Alexander Mejia when they knew that Carolina de Castro was the judicial guardian
of said minors.
5. Petitioners filed a motion to dismiss on the ground that the City Court of Angeles had no jurisdiction over the offense because the
private document that contained the alleged false statement of fact was assigned by them outside theterritorial limits of Angeles City.
6. Petitioners filed a motion to quash with City Court on the ground that said court had no jurisdiction over the offense charged.
7. Respondent judge denied the motion to quash and reset the arraignment of the defendants to March of the same year. Hence this
present action for certiorari and prohibition.

ISSUE/S:
1. WON the motion to quash filed by petitioners necessarily assumes the truth of the allegation of the information to the effect taht
the offense was committed within the territorial jurisdiction of Angeles City ? NO.

RULING: The Criminal Case is not within the jurisdiction of said Angeles Court and that court is hereby restrained and prohibited
from further proceedings.

RATIO:
1. If one were to answer "YES" to the issue at hand, that would be the law applicable to a demurrer, which is now obsolete. (The
demurrer is now called an information).
2. The motion to quash now provided for in Rule 117 of the Rules of Court is manifestly broader in scope than the demurrer, as it is
not limited to defects apparent upon the face of the complaint or information. The motion to quash extends to issues arising out of
extraneous facts, as shown by the circumstance.
3. Section 7 of Rule 117 provides for former jeopardy or acquittal, extinction of criminal action or liability, insanity of the accused
etc., which necessarily involve questions of fact in the determination of which a preliminary trial is required.
4. In the present case, the portion of the record of the reinvestigation which was submitted to the respondent judge for consideration
in connection with the resolution of the motion to quash filed by the defendants shows beyond question that the offense charged
was committed far beyond the territorial jurisdiction of Angeles City.
5. NOTE: In Yap v. Hon. Lutero, it was held that a denial of a judge of a motion to quash does not merit the filing of a an action for
cetiorari and prohibition. The denial of a motion to quash may not be characterized as 'arbitrary' or 'despotic', or to be regarded as
amounting to 'lack of jurisdiction'. The proper procedure, in the event of denial of a motion to quash, is for the accused, upon
arraignment, to plead not guilty and reiterate his defense of former jeopardy, and, in case of conviction, to appeal therefrom, upon the
ground that he has been twice put in jeopardy of punishment, either for the same offense, or for the same act, as the case may be."