1) Why “before arraignment” matters

In Philippine criminal procedure, arraignment is the stage when the accused is formally informed of the charge in open court and asked to enter a plea. Many defenses and objections must be raised before a plea is entered. This is why the period after the Information is filed but before arraignment is a critical window for seeking dismissal or other relief.

As a rule of thumb:

Before arraignment: the principal procedural vehicle is a Motion to Quash (Rule 117), along with related motions that can effectively result in dismissal (e.g., lack of probable cause, withdrawal of Information, violation of speedy disposition, prejudicial question, etc.).
After arraignment / after plea: certain objections are deemed waived, and some remedies (like demurrer to evidence) become available only later.

2) The landscape: how a criminal case reaches arraignment

Understanding the route to arraignment clarifies where dismissal can happen:

Complaint filed (police, private complainant, or offended party)
Preliminary investigation (PI) (for offenses requiring it), resulting in a prosecutor’s resolution
Information filed in court (by the prosecutor, or by the Ombudsman in cases within its jurisdiction)
Judicial determination of probable cause by the judge (personal evaluation of records; possible issuance of warrant or summons)
Arraignment and plea

Dismissal before arraignment can occur at multiple points after the Information is filed:

by the court (e.g., quashal, lack of probable cause, constitutional bars), or
by the prosecution (e.g., withdrawal of Information), subject to court approval once the case is in court.

3) Terminology: “motion to dismiss” vs “motion to quash”

In practice, lawyers sometimes file a pleading titled “Motion to Dismiss” even before arraignment. Under the Rules, however, the recognized pre-arraignment remedy is the Motion to Quash (Rule 117). Substantively:

If the grounds are those listed in Rule 117, the correct remedy is Motion to Quash, even if the pleading is styled “Motion to Dismiss.”
There are also non-Rule-117 motions that can lead to dismissal (e.g., dismissal for lack of probable cause, violation of speedy disposition, or due process violations in PI), and these are often captioned as “Motion to Dismiss.”

Courts generally look at the substance over title—but using the correct rule-based framing is strategically important.

4) The core remedy: Motion to Quash (Rule 117)

A. When to file

A motion to quash is generally filed before arraignment, i.e., before the accused enters a plea.

B. What it attacks

A motion to quash attacks:

the Information itself (its sufficiency, jurisdictional defects, legal bars), or
the authority of the court to proceed based on fundamental defects.

C. Typical outcomes

Information quashed/dismissed (sometimes with leave to amend/refile; sometimes with prejudice)
Order to amend the Information (if defect is curable)
Denial, followed by arraignment

5) Grounds to quash (and how each works)

Rule 117 enumerates classic grounds. Below is a practical explanation of each, including what it usually requires and what dismissal means.

5.1 The facts charged do not constitute an offense

What it means: Even assuming the allegations are true, the Information still fails to allege the essential elements of a crime.

How it’s argued: You compare the Information’s allegations against the statutory elements. Missing an element → no offense.

Result: Quashal/dismissal; sometimes prosecution may be allowed to file a corrected Information if the issue is curable by proper allegations (depending on context and prejudice).

5.2 The court has no jurisdiction over the offense charged

What it means: The case is filed in the wrong court (e.g., wrong level of court due to penalty/jurisdiction, or wrong tribunal with exclusive jurisdiction such as Sandiganbayan in appropriate cases).

Key note: Jurisdiction is determined by the allegations in the Information and the law.

Result: Dismissal or transfer as allowed by rules and statutes; jurisdictional defects are fundamental and generally not waived.

5.3 The court has no jurisdiction over the person of the accused

What it means: The court has not acquired jurisdiction over the accused, typically because the accused has not been arrested, has not appeared voluntarily, or has not otherwise submitted to the court’s authority.

Practical reality: Filing a motion (other than a special appearance contesting jurisdiction) can be treated as voluntary submission. Many defenses should be raised without conceding personal jurisdiction only through careful “special appearance” practice.

Result: If truly lacking, the case cannot proceed against the accused until jurisdiction is acquired; this is less commonly used as a path to permanent dismissal and more as a threshold objection.

5.4 The officer who filed the Information had no authority to do so

What it means: The Information was not filed by the proper prosecutorial authority (e.g., not signed/approved as required, not filed by one legally authorized).

Result: Quashal; often curable by proper authorization/signature.

5.5 The Information does not conform substantially to the prescribed form

What it means: Formal requirements are substantially violated—such that the accused cannot understand the charge or prepare a defense.

Examples (practical):

failure to state the acts/omissions complained of with sufficient clarity
failure to identify the offended party where material
failure to specify qualifying circumstances that increase the offense/penalty (important for due process)

Result: Usually curable by amendment; court may order amendment rather than outright dismissal with prejudice.

5.6 More than one offense is charged (duplicitous Information)

What it means: One Information accuses the accused of multiple offenses (unless the law allows complex crimes or special rules allow it).

Result: Quashal or correction; the prosecution may be required to split into separate Informations unless complex crime rules apply.

5.7 The criminal action or liability has been extinguished

What it means: By operation of law, criminal liability no longer exists.

Common bases:

Death of the accused (extinguishes criminal liability; civil liability ex delicto has specific effects depending on stage and nature)
Service of sentence
Amnesty
Absolute pardon (typically affects penalties and/or liability depending on scope)
Prescription of the crime
Other statutory modes of extinction

Result: Dismissal with prejudice (no refiling), because liability is legally extinguished.

5.8 The Information contains averments which, if true, would constitute a legal excuse or justification

What it means: The Information itself alleges facts that show a justification or exemption (rare in practice because prosecutors usually don’t plead defensive facts).

Result: Quashal if the defensive facts are clear on the face of the Information.

5.9 The accused has been previously convicted or acquitted of the offense charged, or the case was dismissed or otherwise terminated without the accused’s express consent (double jeopardy)

What it means: A second prosecution is barred where jeopardy has attached and the prior case ended in a manner that triggers the constitutional protection.

Core requisites (conceptually):

a valid complaint/Information
court of competent jurisdiction
accused was arraigned and pleaded
accused was acquitted/convicted, or case dismissed without express consent, etc.

Before arraignment in the new case: Double jeopardy is raised via motion to quash, attaching proof of the prior proceedings.

Result: Dismissal with prejudice; refiling is barred.

5.10 The criminal action is barred by prescription

Often treated under extinguishment; in practice, prescription is a major pre-arraignment ground.

What it means: The statutory period to prosecute has lapsed, considering interruption rules (e.g., filing of complaint, PI steps, etc., depending on the offense and governing statute).

Result: Dismissal with prejudice.

6) Related pre-arraignment motions that can end the case

Not all pre-arraignment dismissals fit neatly into Rule 117. Philippine practice recognizes other motions that, when granted, lead to dismissal or termination.

6.1 Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Probable Cause (Judicial determination)

After the Information is filed, the judge must personally evaluate the prosecutor’s resolution and supporting evidence to determine probable cause for:

issuance of a warrant of arrest, or
proceeding via summons if warranted.

What the motion argues: The records do not establish probable cause to hold the accused for trial.

Where it’s strongest: When the prosecution evidence is purely conclusory, internally inconsistent, legally inadequate, or fails to link the accused to the elements of the offense.

Possible results:

dismissal of the case, or
denial but issuance of summons, or
further clarification/orders to submit additional records

6.2 Motion for Reinvestigation / Motion to Conduct Preliminary Investigation (or to complete PI)

A frequent pre-arraignment remedy is seeking reinvestigation when:

PI was allegedly defective or denied (lack of notice, inability to submit counter-affidavit, etc.)
new evidence surfaced
there are significant issues warranting prosecutor re-evaluation

Important procedural note: Courts may allow reinvestigation and, to prevent mooting it, the accused often files a Motion to Suspend Arraignment (see 6.4).

Possible results:

prosecution may move to withdraw/amend Information based on reinvestigation outcome
case may proceed if reinvestigation affirms probable cause

6.3 Motion to Withdraw Information (by the prosecution), with court approval

Once the Information is filed in court, the prosecution generally needs leave of court to withdraw it. This may happen when:

DOJ/Ombudsman review reverses the finding of probable cause
reinvestigation finds no probable cause
key evidence is recanted or shown unreliable
legal developments affect viability of charge

Accused’s role: The accused may support the motion, or file a motion urging dismissal in light of the prosecution’s changed stance.

Court’s role: The court is not a rubber stamp; it ensures withdrawal is consistent with justice and due process.

6.4 Motion to Suspend Arraignment (Rule 116) to pave the way for dismissal

While not itself a dismissal motion, suspension of arraignment is often essential to keep dismissal remedies viable.

Common bases include:

prejudicial question (civil action involves an issue that must be resolved first and is determinative of criminal liability)
pending petition for review before DOJ/Ombudsman and the circumstances justify suspension
accused appears to be suffering from an unsound mental condition that prevents understanding the proceedings
other recognized grounds under the Rules

Suspension prevents hurried arraignment that could complicate certain procedural strategies.

6.5 Motion to Dismiss for Violation of the Right to Speedy Disposition of Cases (Constitutional)

Separate from the right to speedy trial, the Constitution guarantees speedy disposition of cases (often invoked for delays in PI, Ombudsman proceedings, or prosecutorial action).

What it targets: Inordinate, vexatious, and prejudicial delay attributable to the State, evaluated case-by-case (length, reasons, assertion of right, prejudice).

When it matters pre-arraignment: If the delay occurred before filing of the Information (or in review stages) but its consequences persist, dismissal may be sought once the case reaches court.

Result: Dismissal, often with prejudice when anchored on constitutional violation.

6.6 Motion to Dismiss for Violation of Due Process in Preliminary Investigation

If PI is required and the accused was denied meaningful participation (e.g., no notice, no chance to submit counter-affidavit, serious procedural irregularities), an accused may seek dismissal or remand for proper PI.

Typical relief: Courts often order proper PI rather than immediately dismiss with prejudice—unless the violation and circumstances justify termination.

6.7 Motion to Suppress Evidence (and dismissal as a consequence)

Evidence obtained in violation of constitutional rights (e.g., unlawful search and seizure) may be excluded. If the prosecution’s case collapses without the suppressed evidence, dismissal may follow.

Key nuance: Suppression targets evidence; dismissal is a downstream effect if remaining evidence is insufficient.

6.8 Motion to Dismiss based on Compromise / Affidavit of Desistance (limited)

In Philippine criminal law, many crimes are public in nature and not dismissed simply because the complainant desists. Desistance may:

affect the prosecutor’s evaluation of probable cause, or
impact credibility, or
support withdrawal in private crimes or those where settlement has legal effect.

But it is not automatically a ground for dismissal unless the law makes the offense dependent on complaint, or the elements/legal requisites are affected.

7) Waiver rules: defenses that must be raised before plea

A major reason to move before arraignment is waiver. Certain objections are considered waived if not raised timely, especially defects that are not jurisdictional or not grounded on constitutional bars.

In general:

Jurisdiction over the offense, failure to charge an offense, extinction of liability, and double jeopardy are fundamental and tend to survive waiver arguments.
Formal defects and certain procedural objections are often waived if not raised before plea.

Because waiver doctrine can be technical, pleadings typically include multiple grounds in the alternative, prioritizing those that cannot be cured by amendment.

8) Provisional dismissal (Rule 117) and “with/without prejudice” effects

A. Dismissal “with prejudice”

Means the case cannot be refiled (e.g., double jeopardy, prescription, extinction, constitutional bars in many instances).

B. Dismissal “without prejudice”

Means refiling is allowed (e.g., curable defects, lack of authority that can be corrected, dismissal for insufficiency that is not an adjudication on the merits).

C. Provisional dismissal

A provisional dismissal is a dismissal that may be revived under conditions. In Philippine practice, provisional dismissal has its own rule mechanics, including considerations about:

consent of the accused, and
time bars for revival depending on the offense’s penalty bracket.

This becomes important when the prosecution seeks dismissal “for now” (e.g., missing witnesses), because the accused may prefer a disposition that prevents indefinite hanging of the case.

9) Practical structuring of a pre-arraignment dismissal pleading

A well-built pre-arraignment pleading in Philippine courts commonly includes:

Statement of material dates (filing, PI milestones, information filing, warrant/summons dates)
Nature of motion (Motion to Quash under Rule 117; Motion to Dismiss for lack of probable cause; etc.)
Grounds and arguments, organized as:
- threshold grounds (jurisdiction, failure to charge an offense)
- substantive bars (prescription, double jeopardy, extinction)
- due process / constitutional grounds (speedy disposition, defective PI)
Attachments:
- certified copies of prior case records (for double jeopardy)
- prosecutor’s resolution, affidavits, documentary exhibits
- chronology supporting inordinate delay
Reliefs prayed for, often layered:
- primary: quash/dismiss with prejudice
- alternative: order amendment, reinvestigation, suppression of evidence, suspension of arraignment
Proof of service and compliance with hearing/notice requirements, consistent with applicable rules and court issuances

10) Common strategic patterns before arraignment

Pattern A: Attack the Information (Rule 117)

Used when defects are apparent from the Information and law—strongest where the case fails even on its face.

Pattern B: Attack probable cause (records-based)

Used when evidence in the record is insufficient to justify trial, even if the Information is textually adequate.

Pattern C: Remand/reinvestigation + suspend arraignment

Used when the accused’s participation in PI was impaired or when review is pending and likely to reverse the finding.

Pattern D: Constitutional time-delay dismissal

Used when there is a strong chronology of State-caused delay and demonstrable prejudice.

11) After denial: available remedies (overview)

If the court denies a pre-arraignment motion:

the usual next step is arraignment, unless arraignment is suspended or a higher court issues injunctive relief.
certain orders may be challenged via special civil action (e.g., certiorari) when there is grave abuse of discretion and no adequate remedy in the ordinary course.

The availability and viability of these remedies depend heavily on the nature of the order and the governing procedural rules.

12) Key takeaways (doctrinally consistent guideposts)

The Motion to Quash (Rule 117) is the principal pre-arraignment tool for dismissal based on defects in the Information, jurisdictional issues, and legal bars like prescription and double jeopardy.
Courts can dismiss pre-arraignment when probable cause is lacking, when constitutional rights (notably speedy disposition) were violated, or when the prosecution itself seeks withdrawal for legally sound reasons (subject to court approval).
Many objections are waived if not raised before plea, so the pre-arraignment window is where defenses should be asserted in their most potent procedural posture.
The practical question is often not only whether dismissal is possible, but whether it will be with prejudice, without prejudice, or provisional, and what that means for refiling and finality.