DANILO VALENZUELA, EDUARDO DANGALAN, PURIFICACION SERASPI, AND ADRIANO RUIZ, VS. HON. COURT OF APPEALS, PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, HON. JAIME N. SALAZAR, JUDGE OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 103, QUEZON CITY, HON. MARIANO M. SINGZON, JR., JUDGE OF THE METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 31, QUEZON

Ruling

Accordingly, therefore, the Court hereby makes the following pronouncements: That Presidential Decree No. 772 is unconstitutional with the adoption of the 1987 Constitution and impliedly repealed by R.A. No. 7279; Setting aside as annulled the Orders of respondent Hon. Presiding Judge Gregorio Dayrit, MTC, Branch 35, Quezon City dated May 4, 1995 and June 22, 1995, denying the petitioners Motion to Quash; and Issuing the Writ of Preliminary Injunction to enjoin the respondent Court from proceeding to arraignment and trial in Criminal Cases Nos. 35-174, 35-175, 35-176, 35-178, 35-179, 35-180, 35-181, 35-183, 35-184, 34-186, 35-189, 35-196, 35-197, 35-198, 35-199, 35-200, 35-202, 35-203, 35-204, 35-205, 35-206 after posting of an injunction bond in the amount of P50,000.00. [7] G.R. No.127971 On 10 November 1993, respondent De Castro Homesite, Inc., filed a complaint-affidavit before the Quezon City Prosecutors office against petitioners for violation of Pres. Decree No. 772. Pursuant to said complaint, four (4) Informations were filed against petitioners on 08 August 1994, and raffled to Branch 31 of the MeTC of Quezon City. Petitioners filed on 27 September 1994 a motion to Quash said Informations on the ground that the facts charged do not constitute an offense since the constitutionality of Pres. Decree No. 772 was put into question with the adoption of the 1987 Constitution and the passage of Republic Act No. 7279. The Motion to Quash was denied in an Order dated 17 November 1994, stating that the grounds relied upon in the Motion to Quash is evidentiary in character which could be properly ventilated during trial. Petitioners filed a Motion for Reconsideration maintaining that the issues raised in the Motion to Quash are purely questions of law which have to be adjudicated in order to determine whether or not the case against petitioners may proceed. Said Motion for Reconsideration was subsequently denied in an Order dated 13 December 1994. The MeTC stated thus: Considering however that P.D. 772 has not yet been declared unconstitutional by our Supreme Court, it is but proper for this court to accept the constitutionality of P.D. 772. True, it is not within the jurisdiction of this court to declare the constitutionality or unconstitutionality of P.D. 772, but the fact is that the same has not yet been declared unconstitutional. In view of the above observations, the Motion for Reconsideration is hereby DENIED for lack of merit. [8] On 20 February 1995, petitioner filed before the RTC a Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition with prayer for issuance of a Writ of Preliminary Injunction and/or Temporary Restraining Order, which was denied in a decision dated 05 May 1995. The RTC opined: This Court finds no grave abuse of discretion committed by the judge a quo considering that P.D. 772 has not yet been finally declared by our Supreme Court as unconstitutional under the 1987 Constitution or repealed by RA 7279, the Urban Land Reform Law or Lin