Section 4. Amendment of complaint or information

If the alleged defect in the complaint or information may be cured by
amendment, the court shall order the amendment instead of quashing the
complaint or information. However, if the prosecution fails to amend
the complaint or if after the amendment the defect is still not cured,
the MTQ shall be granted.

A good tactical move would be to have the accused first plead to the
information and thereafter file a motion to quash either before or
after the prosecution has presented its evidence. Pursuant to Sec.
9 of Rule 117, an accused, even after he has entered his plea, may
still move to quash the information on the ground that it does not
charge an offense. If the case is dismissed on such ground, the
prosecution may not be permitted to correct the information because
the accused has already pleaded and to allow such amendment may place
the accused twice in jeopardy.

Section 5. Effect of sustaining the motion to quash

1. If the ground for the motion is either:
   a. Facts charged do not constitute an offense
   b. Officer who filed the information had no authority to do so
   c. Information does not conform substantially to the prescribed form
   d. duplicitous information

   The court may order that another information be filed or an
   amendment thereof be made, as the case may be, within a definite
   period. If such order is not made, or if having been made, another
   information is not filed within the time specified in the order or
   within such time as the court may order, the accused, if in custody,
   shall be discharged therefrom, unless he is also in custody on some
   other charge.

2. If the motion is based on the following grounds:
   a. Criminal action or liability has been extinguished
   b. Information contains averments which, if true, would constitute
      a legal excuse or justification
   c. double jeopardy

   The court must state, in the order granting the motion, the release
   of the accused if he is in custody or the cancellation of his bond
   if he is on bail.

3. If the ground for the MTQ was that the court has no jurisdiction
   over the offense, the better practice is to forward or remand the
   case to the proper court, not to quash the complaint or information.

1. Accused should plead
2. Accused should go to trial without prejudice to the special defenses
   he invoked in the motion
3. Appeal from the judgment of conviction, if any, and interpose the
   denial of the motion as an error.

Remedy of Aggrieved Party
   - An order granting a MTQ is appealable, as the proper remedy.
     The accused would not be placed in double jeopardy because the
     accused has not been arraigned yet.

Newsweek Inc. vs IAC, 142 SCRA 443 (1986)
   - An order denying a MTQ is not appealable because such order is
     merely interlocutory. However, if the court, in denying the MTQ,
     acts with grave abuse of discretion, the certiorari or prohibition
     will lie.

This rule does not preclude the aggrieved party from filing a special
civil action of certiorari, as a substitute for the remedy of a lost
appeal, where there is a patent, capricious and whimsical exercise of
discretion by a trial judge or where an appeal will not promptly relieve
the aggrieved party from the injurious effect of the disputed order,
as in the quashal of an information for incomplete preliminary