A motion to suspend the issuance of the warrant of arrest may be considered a motion to quash because it is not the caption of the pleadings but the allegations therein contained that should prevail. The allegations of said motion, in effect, mean that the information does not charge an offense.
PEOPLE vs. MATONDO
G.R. No. L-12873, February 24, 1961
1 SCRA 534
Facts:
In 1955, Matondo and 29 others were charged with violation of Republic Act. No. 947 before CFI Davao for having entered and occupied, through force, strategy and stealth, several portions of public agricultural land in Panabo, Province of Davao, and compromised within the area covered by Sales Application No. 19010 of the PWEA.
Defendants filed a Motion to Suspend the Issuance of Warrant against them on the ground that they have been in possession of the land, subject matter of the Information, before June 30, 1953, the effectivity of Act 947.
The case was set for hearing and Matondo presented his documentary evidence.
After hearing of the motion, the court dismissed the information.
The State appealed.
Issue:
Held:
We agree with the Solicitor General that the regular procedure was not followed. This not-withstanding, the motion filed by the defendants, could be considered as a Motion to Quash the information. For one thing, it is not the caption of a pleading, but the allegations contained therein, that should prevail. In the Motion to suspend the issuance of warrant of arrest, the defendants claimed that "their possession of the land, subject matter of the information, dates back before the effectivity of the law punishing the acts". The motion, objectively considered, therefore, was virtually a motion to quash on the ground that the information does not charge an offense or that the facts charged do not constitute an offense, as in fact, with respect to the accused, the offense did not then exist.
0
Comments
