Section 2. Form and contents.

The motion to quash shall be in writing, signed by the accused or his counsel and shall
distinctly specify its factual and legal grounds. The court shall consider no ground other than
those stated in the motion, except lack of jurisdiction over the offense charged.

WHAT IS THE FORM REQUIRED FOR A MOTION TO QUASH?

1. It must be in writing.

No oral motion for the quashal of the complaint or information is allowed.

2. It must be signed by the accused or his counsel.

EFFECT OF AN INFORMATION THAT WAS SIGNED BY AN UNAUTHORIZED PERSON?

> A valid information must be signed by a competent officer, which, among other requisites,
confers jurisdiction over the person of the accused and the subject matter of the accusation.

> Thus, an infirmity in the information such as the lack of authority of the officer signing it
cannot be cured by silence, acquiescence, express consent, or even amendment.

It is an invalid information and cannot be the basis of criminal proceedings.

> A motion to quash would prosper.

3. It must specify its factual and legal grounds

When a demurrer is made to a complaint, it should set out distinctly the grounds upon wich the
objection is based.

-It is not fair to the plaintiff to interpose to a complaint the simplified objection.

A demurrer was not invented to make useless work for a court, or to deceive or delude a
plaintiff.

1. its purpose was to clarify all ambiguities;

2. to make certain all indefinite assertions;

3. to bring the plaintiff to a clear and clean expression of the precise grievance which he has
against the defendant;

4. to aid in arriving at a real issue between the parties;

5. to promote understanding and prevent surprise.

A demurrer should specify, for the benefit of the plaintiff and the court as well, the very
weakness which the demurrant believes he sees in the complaint. It should be so presented
whether the plaintiff has, at bottom, a legal claim against the defendant.

A demurrer should be clear, specific, definite and certain as to the precise weakness of the
complaint. Being an instrument to cure imperfections, it should not itself be imperfect.

It is argued here that the court erred in its construction of the contract. We are of the opinion
that the contention is sound. The intention of parties to a contract must be determined, in the
first instance, from the words of the contract itself. It is to be presumed that persons mean what
they say when they speak plain English. Interpretation and construction should by the
instruments last resorted to by a court in determining what the parties agreed to. Where the
language used by the parties is plain, then construction and interpretation are unnecessary
and, if used, result in making a contract for the parties.

The court said with reference to the construction and interpretation of statutes: "As for us, we
do not construe or interpret this law. It does not need it. We apply it. By applying the law, we
conserve both provisions for the benefit of litigants. The first and fundamental duty of courts, in
our judgment, is to apply the law. Construction and interpretation come only after it has been
demonstrated that application is impossible or inadequate without them. They are the very
last functions which a court should exercise. The majority of the law need no interpretation or
construction. They require only application, and if there were more application and less
construction, there would be more stability in the law, and more people would know what the
law is."

(Lizarraga Hermanos vs. Yap Tico, 24 Phil. Rep., 504.)

Court to consider only that ground set out in the motion.

CAN THE COURT DISMISS THE CASE BASED ON GROUNDS THAT ARE NOT ALLEGED IN THE
MOTION TO QUASH?

> The general rule is no, the court cannot consider any ground other than those stated in the
motion to quash.

> The exception is the lack of jurisdiction over the offense charged. If this is the ground for
dismissing the case, it need not be alleged in the motion to quash since it goes into the very
competence of the court to pass upon the case.

The prohibition against the consideratin of other grounds than those specially pleaded in the
motion to quash seems to rest on the idea that the right to these defenses are waivable on the
aprt of the accused, and that by filing to claim said right, he is deemed to have desired these
matters to be litigated upon in a full-blown trial.
X FILED A MOTION TO QUASH ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS: THAT THE COURT LACKED
JURISDICTION OVER THE PERSON OF THE ACCUSED AND THAT THE COMPLAINT CHARGED
MORE THAN ONE OFFENSE. CAN THE COURT GRANT THE MOTION ON THE GROUND OF
LACK OF JURISDICTION?

> In the past, the answer would have been no since the SC ruled in several cases then that the
motion to quash on the ground of lack of jurisdiction over the person of the accused must be
based only on this ground. If other grounds are included, there is waiver, and the
accused is deemed to have submitted himself to the jurisdiction of the court.

> The new rule, based on the decisions of the SC on Section 20 of Rule 14 of the 1997 Rules of
Civil Procedure, the inclusion of other grounds aside from lack of jurisdiction over the
person of the defendant in a motion to dismiss shall not be considered as a voluntary
appearance.

X FILED A MOTION TO QUASH AN INFORMATION ON THE GROUND THAT HE WAS IN THE US

WHEN THE CRIME CHARGED WAS COMMITTED. SHOULD THE MOTION BE GRANTED?

> The motion should be denied.

> The accused is already making a defense.

> Matters of defense are generally not a ground for a motion to quash they should be
presented at the trial.