G.R. No. 229190 - MANUEL G. SUNIGA, JR. AND ANASTACIA D. SUNIGA, VS. ROLANDO MOLINA, MA. RITCHIALYN LEODONES, LEONARDO DE GUZMAN, AND FROILAN ALEJANDRIA.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, there being probable cause for Estafa and Illegal Recruitment in Large Scale, it is recommended that the respondents be indicted for these offenses, and that the attached Informations be approved for filing in court. [17] No action was taken on the case until eight years later , or on December 17, 2013 , when the abovementioned Information was filed with the RTC. The RTC Proceedings On February 7, 2014, the RTC issued a warrant of arrest against petitioners, [18] which they questioned in their Motion to Quash/Dismiss and Motion to Recall and Quash the Warrant of Arrest [19] (Motion to Quash). Petitioners contended that the RTC had no jurisdiction over the case as it involved money claims over which the National Labor Relations Commission has original and exclusive jurisdiction, that they were deprived of due process because of the undue delay in the conduct of the preliminary investigation, and that in any case, the offense has already prescribed since illegal recruitment prescribes in five years. [20] Petitioners added that their civil obligation relative to this case has been settled sometime in 2002. [21] In an Order dated April 13, 2015, the RTC denied the Motion to Quash for lack of merit. [22] The RTC upheld its jurisdiction over the case, citing Section 9 [23] of Republic Act No. (RA) 8042. [24] It also ruled that petitioners were charged with large scale illegal recruitment involving economic sabotage, and therefore the crime has not yet prescribed since under RA 8042, the prescriptive period for the same is 20 years. [25] The RTC also found no due process violations, pointing out that there was no evidence that the civil aspect of the case has been settled and that petitioners were given the chance to file their counter-affidavits, but failed to do so. [26] Aggrieved, petitioners moved for reconsideration, but the same was denied in an Order dated May 25, 2015. [27] Undaunted, petitioners filed with the CA a Rule 65 Petition, claiming that the RTC gravely abused its discretion in denying their Motion to Quash and their subsequent motion for reconsideration. [28] The CA Ruling In a Decision [29] dated November 22, 2016, the CA affirmed the RTC ruling. On the procedural question, the CA ruled that a petition for certiorari is not the proper remedy to assail the denial of a motion to quash an Information, holding that the proper procedure was for petitioners to enter their plea, go to trial without prejudice to presenting the defenses invoked in their Motion to Quash, and if an adverse decision is rendered, to appeal therefrom in the manner authorized by law. [30] The CA added that issues involving the finding of probable cause, either for an indictment or for the issuance of a warrant of arrest, are primarily questions of fact that are normally not within the purview of a petition for certiorari . [31] The CA then held that petitioners failed to show that the RTC gravely abused its discretion in issuing the assailed Orders. [32]