REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT

________ JUDICIAL REGION
BRANCH

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,

Plaintiff,

CRIM. CASE NO. B-

-versus- For: THEFT

Accused.
x------------------------------------------x

ORDER

This resolves the Motion to Quash filed by the accused through

counsel and the Comment /Objection thereto filed by the Private Prosecutor.
In his motion, accused raised the ground of Novation as basis for his
Motion to Quash alleging among others that the parties had already settled
the case prior to the filing of the complaint and that Novation already exists
which negates the accused's criminal liability. The ground aforestated was
hinged on the alleged substitution of the accused ____________ to a certain
_____________to which the complainant supposedly acceded to, thereby
producing the effect of extinguishing an obligation by another who
substitutes to the same.
The Prosecutions on the otherhand moves for the dismissal of the
Motion to Quash and posits that under Rule 117 of the Revised Rules of
Criminal Procedure, novation is not one of the grounds for filing a Motion to
Quash since the grounds enumerated under section 3 of the same Rule is
exclusive. The prosecution also stated that Novation is not one of the modes
of extinguishing criminal liability provided under the Revised Penal Code
and that at most, the settlement between the parties, if true would only
constitute settlement of the civil aspect of the case and would not affect the
criminal liability of the accused.
The novation theory may perhaps apply prior to the filing of the
criminal information in court by the state prosecutors because up to that time
the original trust relation may be converted by the parties into an ordinary
creditor-debtor situation, thereby placing the complainant in estoppel to
insist on the original trust. But after the justice authorities have taken
cognizance of the crime and instituted action in court, the offended party
may no longer divest the prosecution of its power to exact the criminal
liability, as distinguished from the civil. The crime being an offense against
the state, only the latter can renounce it.1
It may be observed in this regard that novation is not one of the means
recognized by the Penal Code whereby criminal liability can be
extinguished; hence, the role of novation may only be to either prevent the
rise of criminal liability or to cast doubt on the true nature of the original
basic transaction, whether or not it was such that its breach would not give
rise to penal responsibility, as when money loaned is made to appear as a
deposit, or other similar disguise is resorted to.2
Even in Civil Law the acceptance of partial payments, without further
change in the original relation between the complainant and the accused, can
not produce novation. For the latter to exist, there must be proof of intent to
extinguish the original relationship, and such intent can not be inferred from
the mere acceptance of payments on account of what is totally due. Much
less can it be said that the acceptance of partial satisfaction can effect the
nullification of a criminal liability that is fully matured, and already in the
process of enforcement.3
The determinative test in appreciating a motion to quash is the
sufficiency of the averments in the information, that is, whether the facts
alleged, if hypothetically admitted, would establish the essential elements of
the offense as defined by law without considering matters aliunde.4 The
Rules of Criminal Procedure requires that the information only needs to state
the ultimate facts,5 the evidentiary and other details can be provided during
the trial.6
The ground raised by the accused in his Motion to Quash is Novation
which essentially delve on evidentiary matters that are best passed upon in a
full-blown trial. The issues upon which the charges are built pertain to factual
matters that cannot be threshed out conclusively during the preliminary stage of
the case. Precisely, there is a trial for the presentation of prosecution's evidence
in support of the charge.7 The presence or absence of the elements of the crime
is evidentiary in nature and is a matter of defense that may be passed upon after
a full-blown trial on the merits. The validity and merits of a party's defense or
accusation, as well as admissibility of testimonies and evidence, are better
ventilated during trial proper than at the preliminary investigation level. 8

1 People vs. Gervacio, 54 Off. Gaz. 2898; People vs. Velasco, 42 Phil. 76; U.S. vs. Montañes, 8 Phil. 620

2 Abeto vs. People, 90 Phil. 581; U.S. vs. Villareal, 27 Phil. 481
3 Camus vs. Court of Appeals, 48 Off. Gaz. 3898)

4 Poblete vs. Sandoval GR. 150610 march 25, 2004

5 Sec.6 Rule 117
6 Domingo vs. Sandiganbayan GR. 109376 January 20, 2000
7 Quiambao v. Desierto, G.R. No. 149069, September 20, 2004, 438 SCRA 496-497, 508.
 WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the Motion to Quash filed
by the accused through counsel is hereby DENIED for lack of merit.
SO ORDERED

Presiding Judge

8  Andres v. Cuevas, G.R. No. 150869, June 9, 2005, 460 SCRA 40, 52.