I Page 13 of 27

e. Where the prosecution is under an invalid law, ordinance or

regulation;
f. When double jeopardy is clearly apparent;
g. Where the court has no jurisdiction over the offense;
h, Where there is a case of persecution rather than prosecution;
i. Where the charges are manifestly false and motivated by the lust for
vengeance;
j. When there is clearly no prima facie case against the accused and a
motion to quash on that ground has been denied; and
k. Preliminary injunction has been issued by the Supreme Court to prevent
the threatened unlawful arrest of petitioners.
People of the Phil. vs. Joseph V. Grey, et al., G.R. No. 180109, July 26, 2010

It bears emphasizing that when the trial court grants a motion of the public prosecutor to
withdraw the Information in compliance with the directive of the Secretary of Justice, or
to deny the said motion, it does so not out of compliance to or defiance of the directive of
the Secretary of Justice, but in sound and faithful exercise of its judicial prerogative. The
trial court is the best and sole judge on what to do with the case before it. The rule
applies to a motion to withdraw the Information or to dismiss the case even before or
after the arraignment of the accused. The prior determination of probable cause by the
trial court does not in any way bar a contrary finding upon reassessment of the evidence
presented before it,
Antonio B. Ramos vs. People of the Phil., et al., G.R. No. 171565, July 13, 2010

SECTION 2. The complaint or information. — The complaint or information shall be in

writing, in the name of the People of the Philippines and against all persons who appear
to be responsible for the offense involved. (2a)

SECTION 3. Complaint defined, ..... A complaint is a sworn written statement charging a

person with an offense, subscribed by the offended party, any peace officer, or other
,public officer charged with the enforcement of the law violated. (3)

Oporto Jr. v. Mortserate, A.M. No. MTJ-96-1109, April 16, 2001:

.Complainant Oporto charged Judge Monserate with "gross ignorance of the law" for
issuing a warrant of arrest against him despite the fact that, First, the criminal complaint
against him was not under oath, and Second, the affidavits and sworn statements of the
prosecution witnesses were likewise not under oath and certified.

We agree with the Court Administrator that disciplinary action against Judge Monserate
on this ground is warranted. We quote pertinent portions of the report:

". . It has been held, however, that if the complaint is not sworn to, the defect is merely
one of form which cannot invalidate the judgment rendered thereon (U.S, vs. Bibal, 4
Phil. 369). However, respondent should have exercised diligent effort to read the
complaint so that this minor problem should have been remedied immediately by merely
calling the complainant and swearing said complaint to him,

"Moreover, had he endeavored to exert simple effort to read the complaint and made
research on the latest jurisprudence and laws, he would not have gone through
conducting a preliminary investigation on the case for the same falls exclusively within
his court's jurisdiction under RA 7691 or the Expanded Jurisdiction of the MTCC's and
MCTC's.

xxx

"Even granting for the sake of argument that the case falls within the jurisdiction of the
Regional Trial Court as a case for Estee thru Falsification of Commercial document as
respondent alleged when the case was first returned by the Office of the Provincial
Prosecutor, he should have made the necessary corrections as to form to reflect the