This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2009-06-30 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| The fundamental test in considering a motion to quash anchored on Section 3 (a),[19] Rule 117 of the1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure, is the sufficiency of the averments in the information; that is, whether the facts alleged, if hypothetically admitted, would establish the essential elements of the offense charged as defined by law.[20] The trial court may not consider a situation contrary to that set forth in the criminal complaint or information. Facts that constitute the defense of the petitioners against the charge under the information must be proved by them during trial. Such facts or circumstances do not constitute proper grounds for a motion to quash the information on the ground that the material averments do not constitute the offense.[21] | |||||
|
2003-08-15 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| In the instant case, not only did petitioner fail to avail of the ordinary and appropriate remedies in assailing the questioned judgments of the trial courts, but he also failed to show to the satisfaction of this Court that he could not have availed of the ordinary and appropriate remedies under the Rules. According to petitioner, he allegedly learned of the cases filed against him by respondent bank only when writs of execution were issued against him. At the very least then, he could have moved to quash the writs of execution. In the alternative, he could have filed a petition for relief of judgment under Rule 38.[13] Instead, petitioner merely alleged that he approached Atty. Gregorio Salazar, the bank's counsel, for clarification and assistance, which is not one of the ordinary and appropriate remedies contemplated by the Rules. Petitioner's failure to explain why he failed to avail of said remedies, which were still available to him at that time, in both Civil Case No. 7355-M and Civil Case No. 2856-V-88, is fatal to his cause. To be sure, a petition for annulment of judgment under Rule 47 is not a substitute for one's own neglect in not availing of the ordinary and appropriate remedies, but a peculiar remedy granted under certain conditions to those who failed to avail of the ordinary remedies without their fault. Thus, in our considered view, based on the cited reasons and circumstances, the Court of Appeals did not err when it denied the petition for annulment of judgment. | |||||
|
2003-08-15 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| Service of summons upon the defendant is necessary in order that a court could acquire jurisdiction over his person.[16] In this case, despite petitioner's asseverations, we find sufficient basis to conclude that the respective summons in both Civil Case No. 7355-M and Civil Case No. 2856-V-88 were properly served on him. | |||||