Title
Basa vs. People
Case
G.R. No. 152444
Decision Date
Feb 16, 2005
Corporate officers charged with swindling and falsification for mortgaging encumbered property; RTC's reversal of MeTC's quashal deemed interlocutory, not appealable; SC upheld CA's dismissal, directing trial to proceed.
Font Size:

Case Digest (G.R. No. 152444)

Facts:

  1. Parties Involved:

    • Petitioners: Francisco C. Basa, Manuel H. Osmeña, Mark Philip L. Basa, and Renato H. Uy.
    • Respondent: People of the Philippines.
  2. Charges Filed:

    • Petitioners were charged with swindling under Article 316, paragraph 2, and falsification of public documents under Article 171, paragraph 4, of the Revised Penal Code.
  3. Allegations in Criminal Case No. 279220 (Swindling):

    • Petitioners, as corporate officers of One World Land and Properties Corporation, allegedly mortgaged a property covered by TCT No. 21163 to Pioneer Insurance and Surety Corporation for P60,000,000.00.
    • They falsely represented that the property was free from encumbrances, despite knowing it was encumbered per annotations on TCT Nos. 210429 and 210430.
  4. Allegations in Criminal Case No. 279221 (Falsification):

    • Petitioners allegedly caused the cancellation of TCT Nos. 210429 and 210430 and falsified a new TCT No. 211643, making it appear unencumbered when it was not.
  5. Procedural History:

    • Petitioners filed a Joint Motion to Quash the Informations, arguing that the facts charged did not constitute an offense.
    • The Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) granted the motion, quashing the Informations.
    • On appeal, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) reversed the MeTC’s decision, allowing the prosecution to proceed.
    • Petitioners filed a petition for review with the Court of Appeals, which dismissed the petition, ruling that the RTC’s decision was interlocutory and not appealable.

Issue:

  • (Unlock)

Ruling:

  • (Unlock)

Ratio:

  1. Interlocutory Nature of the RTC Decision:

    • A final order disposes of the entire subject matter or terminates the proceeding, leaving nothing more to be done. In contrast, an interlocutory order does not dispose of the case completely but leaves something more to be done.
    • The RTC’s decision, which reversed the MeTC’s quashal of the Informations, was interlocutory because it allowed the criminal proceedings to continue.
  2. Impropriety of Appeal from Interlocutory Orders:

    • Appeals from interlocutory orders are generally not allowed to avoid multiplicity of appeals and delays in the administration of justice.
    • The proper procedure when a motion to quash is denied is for the accused to enter a plea, proceed to trial, and raise their defenses during the trial. If convicted, they may appeal the final judgment.
  3. Sufficiency of the Informations:

    • The Informations sufficiently alleged the elements of the crimes charged, enabling the petitioners to prepare their defense.
    • The RTC and the Court of Appeals correctly ruled that the petitioners failed to prove the absence of essential elements in the Informations.


Jur is an AI-powered legal research platform in the Philippines for case digests, summaries, and jurisprudence. AI-generated content may contain inaccuracies; please verify independently.