G.R. No. 143044 - WILLIAM MADARANG AND EVANS KHO, VS. HON. COURT OF APPEALS AND THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, HON. OFELIA ARELLANO-MARQUEZ, PRESIDING JUDGE OF THE METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT OF QUEZON CITY, BRANCH 32 AND JANICE YOUNG-CHUA.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

accordingly, the factual findings of RTC, Branch 84 cannot be overturned by the MeTC. The Solicitor General, on the other hand, avers that the decision in the replevin suit cannot foreclose or suspend the prosecution of the criminal cases for falsification and grave coercion as replevin is an entirely separate and distinct remedy allowed by the rules. He states that res judicata cannot apply for lack of the essential elements of identity of parties and finality of the decision in the replevin suit. As for private respondent, she argues that the decision of RTC, Branch 84 can not be conclusive upon the MeTC because it is not a final and executory judgment, being on appeal in the CA, and, even if final, the rules provide that such final decision does not foreclose prosecution of the criminal action. She insists that the MeTC Judge did not act beyond her jurisdiction as the denial of the motion to quash was in accordance with law and jurisprudence and, thus, petitioners' resort to certiorari was improper and appropriately dismissed by the RTC and the CA. At the outset, we observe that while the assigned errors appear to raise errors of judgment committed by the CA, the arguments of the petitioners purely dwell on the alleged grave abuse of discretion or error of jurisdiction committed by the MeTC in denying the Motion to Quash, the very issue they raised in the petition for certiorari before the RTC, when the issues that should have been raised in the petition for review on certiorari before us are the errors of judgment that the CA may have committed in dismissing their petition for certiorari . Petitioners' utter failure to bring up the matter concerning the CA's bases in dismissing their petition shows that they are evading the issues. Nonetheless, we find that the CA is correct in dismissing petitioners' petition for certiorari . First . We note that the petitions for certiorari in the RTC and CA are defective since petitioners failed to implead the People of the Philippines as respondent therein. As provided in Section 5, [22] Rule 110 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure, all criminal actions are prosecuted under the direction and control of the public prosecutor. The prosecution of offenses is thus the concern of the government prosecutors. It behooved the petitioners to implead the People of the Philippines as respondent in the RTC and in the CA to enable the public prosecutor or Solicitor General, as the case may be, to comment on the petitions. The failure to implead is fatal to petitioners' cause. Second. It is settled that a special civil action for certiorari and prohibition is not the proper remedy to assail the denial of a motion to quash an information. The established rule is that when such an adverse interlocutory order is rendered, the remedy is not to resort forthwith to certiorari or prohibition, but to continue with the case in due course and, when an unfavorable verdict is handed down to take an appeal in the manner authorized b