September 1954 - Philippine Supreme Court Decisions/Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence
Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1954 > September 1954 Decisions >
G.R. No. L-6647 September 2, 1954 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MANUEL VIROLA, ET AL.
095 Phil 759:
095 Phil 759:
EN BANC
[G.R. No. L-6647. September 2, 1954.]
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Complainant-Appellee, v. MANUEL VIROLA and JUANITO ALLA, Accused-Appellants.
Jose R. Sanvicente, for Appellants.
Solicitor General Juan R. Liwag and Solicitor Jose G. Bautista, for the appellee.
SYLLABUS
1. APPEALS; ORDER OVERRULING MOTION TO QUASH IS NOT APPEALABLE. — An order of the Court of First Instance overruling defendant’s motion to quash does not dispose of the cause upon its merits and therefore not applicable.
2. ID.; ID.; MOTION TO QUASH BEFORE PLEADING; IF DENIED, TRIAL SHALL GO ON; APPEAL AFTER FINAL JUDGMENT IS RENDERED. — If the defendant moves to quash before pleading, and if final judgment is rendered against him, he can then appeal from such judgment.
2. ID.; ID.; MOTION TO QUASH BEFORE PLEADING; IF DENIED, TRIAL SHALL GO ON; APPEAL AFTER FINAL JUDGMENT IS RENDERED. — If the defendant moves to quash before pleading, and if final judgment is rendered against him, he can then appeal from such judgment.
D E C I S I O N
BENGZON, J.:
In the municipal court, City of Cabanatuan, a criminal complaint was filed charging Manuel Virola and others with the crime of serious slander by deed. At the preliminary investigation the defendants moved to quash the case because the complaint was signed by the offended party Eugenio Reyes, but the offense was a public crime to be prosecuted by the corresponding officials. The judge upheld the contention, and dismissed the case by an order dated November 23, 1952. On appeal to the Court of First Instance, the Hon. M. M. Mejia, reversed the appealed order, and "remanded the case to the court of origin for further proceedings."cralaw virtua1aw library
From this reversal, the appellants took exception and brought the matter to this Supreme Court, contending that the lower court erred: (1) in not dismissing the case for lack of personality of the private prosecutor (2) in not declaring the complaint invalid and (3) in deciding that the Fiscal in effect adopted the complaint when he appeared in court on the side of the complainant.
We find this appeal to be premature. It is practically appealing an order of the Court of First Instance that overrules defendant’s motion to quash the information. We recently held that such appeal is too early to be entertained here:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
"In March 1953 the defendant submitted a motion to quash both cases, contending that the assistant provincial fiscal had no authority to formulate the charges, nor to hold the preliminary investigation.
"Denial of such motion, cause the instant appeal, which we find to be premature, inasmuch as the order overruling the motion was not appealable.
‘SECTION 1. Appeal. — From all final judgments of the Court of First Instance or courts of similar jurisdiction, and in all cases in which the law now provides for appeals from said courts, an appeal may be taken to the Court of Appeals or to the Supreme Court as hereinafter prescribed.’ (Rule 118 sec. 1).
‘Under section 1, in order that a judgment may be appealed from, it is necessary that it be final in the sense that it completely disposes of the cause, so that no further question affecting the merits remain for adjudication. An order overruling a motion to dismiss presented by the defendant against the information does not dispose of the cause upon its merits and is thus merely interlocutory and not a final order within the meaning of the above action. But an order sustaining a motion to dismiss is appealable for it leaves nothing to be done in the trial court.’ (Moran Rules of Court [1952 Ed. ] Vol. 2 p. 880, citing Fuster v. Johnson, 1 Phil., 670.)
"And in line with the above view, the Rules specifically direct that if defendant moves to quash before pleading, and the motion is overruled, "he shall immediately plead" ; (sec. 1 Rule 113) which means, obviously, that trial shall go on. As stated in Collins v. Wolfe, 4 Phil., 534, the appellant Domingo Manuel, after the denial of his motion, "should have proceeded with the trial of the causes in the court below, and if final judgment is rendered against him he can then appeal, and upon such appeal present the question which he is now seeking to have decided" 1
What herein appellants should do is to defend themselves as best they can, in the courts below, without waiving the point they have raised and if convicted, they may appeal and then discuss the questions they are now submitting beforehand.
Appeal dismissed, with costs. So ordered.
Paras, C.J., Pablo, Padilla, Montemayor, Reyes, A., Jugo, Bautista Angelo, Concepcion and Reyes, J.B.L., JJ., concur.
From this reversal, the appellants took exception and brought the matter to this Supreme Court, contending that the lower court erred: (1) in not dismissing the case for lack of personality of the private prosecutor (2) in not declaring the complaint invalid and (3) in deciding that the Fiscal in effect adopted the complaint when he appeared in court on the side of the complainant.
We find this appeal to be premature. It is practically appealing an order of the Court of First Instance that overrules defendant’s motion to quash the information. We recently held that such appeal is too early to be entertained here:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
"In March 1953 the defendant submitted a motion to quash both cases, contending that the assistant provincial fiscal had no authority to formulate the charges, nor to hold the preliminary investigation.
"Denial of such motion, cause the instant appeal, which we find to be premature, inasmuch as the order overruling the motion was not appealable.
‘SECTION 1. Appeal. — From all final judgments of the Court of First Instance or courts of similar jurisdiction, and in all cases in which the law now provides for appeals from said courts, an appeal may be taken to the Court of Appeals or to the Supreme Court as hereinafter prescribed.’ (Rule 118 sec. 1).
‘Under section 1, in order that a judgment may be appealed from, it is necessary that it be final in the sense that it completely disposes of the cause, so that no further question affecting the merits remain for adjudication. An order overruling a motion to dismiss presented by the defendant against the information does not dispose of the cause upon its merits and is thus merely interlocutory and not a final order within the meaning of the above action. But an order sustaining a motion to dismiss is appealable for it leaves nothing to be done in the trial court.’ (Moran Rules of Court [1952 Ed. ] Vol. 2 p. 880, citing Fuster v. Johnson, 1 Phil., 670.)
"And in line with the above view, the Rules specifically direct that if defendant moves to quash before pleading, and the motion is overruled, "he shall immediately plead" ; (sec. 1 Rule 113) which means, obviously, that trial shall go on. As stated in Collins v. Wolfe, 4 Phil., 534, the appellant Domingo Manuel, after the denial of his motion, "should have proceeded with the trial of the causes in the court below, and if final judgment is rendered against him he can then appeal, and upon such appeal present the question which he is now seeking to have decided" 1
What herein appellants should do is to defend themselves as best they can, in the courts below, without waiving the point they have raised and if convicted, they may appeal and then discuss the questions they are now submitting beforehand.
Appeal dismissed, with costs. So ordered.
Paras, C.J., Pablo, Padilla, Montemayor, Reyes, A., Jugo, Bautista Angelo, Concepcion and Reyes, J.B.L., JJ., concur.
Endnotes:
1. Cf. Arches v. Beldia, L-2414, May 27, 1949.
(a). People v. L-6794 and 6795 August 11, 1954.
