Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1959 > February 1959 Decisions > G.R. No. L-13131 February 28, 1959 - EDILBERTO BAROT v. HON. JULIO VILLAMOR

105 Phil 263:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-13131. February 28, 1959.]

EDILBERTO BAROT, ETC., Petitioner, v. HON. JULIO VILLAMOR, ETC., ET AL., Respondents.

City Fiscal Edilberto Barot, Assistant Fiscals Lorenzo Relova and Apolinar F. Tolentino for Petitioner.

Vicente J. Francisco for respondent Vicente Alunan.


SYLLABUS


1. CRIMINAL PROCEDURE; MOTION TO QUASH; PLEA AS WAIVER. — Under Section 10, Rule 113 of the Rules of Court, except when the complaint or information does not charge an offense or the court is without jurisdiction of the same, if the accused pleaded not guilty to the information, he can no longer file a motion to quash on the ground that it does not apprise him of the true nature of the offense charged for the same is deemed to have been waived by him when he was arraigned and pleaded not guilty.


D E C I S I O N


BAUTISTA ANGELO, J.:


This is a petition for certiorari seeking to set aside the order of respondent judge entered on August 5, 1957 ordering the city fiscal to file a second amended information setting forth therein certain additional facts required by the accused to apprise them of the real nature of the offense described in the information.

On July 2, 1956, an information was filed before the Court of First Instance of Manila against Vicente Villanueva, Francisco T. Koh, Santos Llorca, Eloy T. Koh, Dolores Siy-Hai Pin, Jose, Jose Uy Eng alias Jose Villanueva Uy, Procopio Eleazar and Vicente Alunan, charging them with a violation of Section 16 of Republic Act No. 85. On July 3, 1956, the information was amended by the city fiscal by alleging therein certain additional facts in the alternative form as authorized by said Act. Vicente Alunan filed a motion to quash this amended information on July 12, 1956, which was denied, the court stating that the facts alleged therein were clear enough to apprise the accused of the real charge. The court however ordered the fiscal to file a second amended information in order that the clarification asked for may be made.

Alunan was arraigned on January 5, 1957 on which occasion he pleaded not guilty to the charge contained in the amended information. Despite the denial of his first motion to quash, Alunan again filed on June 19, 1957 another motion to quash alleging this time that the amended information "is not sufficiently specific to enable him to know what offense is intended to be charged against him, and, fails absolutely to conform to the prescribed form, and violates his constitutional right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation as well as his constitutional right to defend himself and his corollary right to prepare for trial." This motion was opposed by the city fiscal contending, among other things, that the grounds alleged therein have already been waived by the accused when he pleaded not guilty to the charge. The second motion to quash was denied on August 5, 1957 but the court ordered the fiscal to further amend the information in order that the alleged inconsistent allegations contained therein may be corrected. The city fiscal moved to reconsider this order on the main ground that, should the information be further amended as directed by the court, it may place the accused in double jeopardy considering that he had already been arraigned and pleaded not guilty. And when this motion was denied, the government interposed the present petition for certiorari.

Section 10, Rule 113, of the Rules of Court provides that "if the defendant does not move to quash the complaint or information before he pleads thereto, he shall be taken to have waived all objections which are grounds for a motion to quash except when the complaint or information does not charge an offense, or the court is without jurisdiction of the same." all objections which are grounds for a motion to quash if not urged before the defendant pleads shall be deemed waived (Suy Sui v. People 49 Off. Gaz. 967).

The facts of the instant case call for the application of the rule above pointed out. Thus, it appears that the original information was filed on July 2, 1956. This information was amended on July 3, 1956. On July 10, 1956 accused Vicente Alunan filed his first motion to quash alleging that the information was ambiguous as it does not conform to the requirement that it must apprise the accused clearly of the nature of the offense with which he is charged. this motion was denied, the court stating that said amended information was clear enough to enable the accused to understand the real nature of the charge. Then, on January 5, 1957, Alunan pleaded not guilty to the amended information, and on June 20, 1957 he filed his second motion to quash reiterating practically the same ground of ambiguity, he relied on in his previous motion.

Evidently, having pleaded not guilty to the amended information, Alunan can no longer file a second motion to quash on the ground that it does not apprise him of the true nature of the offense charged for the same is deemed to have been waived by him when he was arraigned and pleaded not guilty. The trial judge should have denied the second motion to quash and should have proceeded with the trial of the case as ordained by Section 1, Rule 11, of the Rules of Court. This is in line with the ruling we laid down in a recent case:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"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.’" (People v. Manuel, G. R. Nos. L-6794-95, August 11, 1954)

Wherefore, the order of respondent judge of August 5, 1957 is hereby set aside. The case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings. No costs.

Paras, C.J., Padilla, Montemayor, Reyes, A. Labrador, Concepcion, Reyes, J. B. L. and Endencia, JJ., concur.




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






February-1959 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-11980 February 14, 1959 - MATHEW S. TEE v. TACLOBAN ELECTRIC AND ICE PLANT CO., INC.

    105 Phil 168

  • G.R. No. L-12426 February 16, 1959 - PHILIPPINE LAWYER’S ASSOCIATION v. CELEDONIO AGRAVA

    105 Phil 173

  • G.R. Nos. L-10644-45 February 19, 1959 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MELQUIADES GOROSPE

    105 Phil 184

  • G.R. No. L-12905 February 26, 1959 - ELENA PERALTA VDA. DE CAINA, ET AL. v. GUSTAVO VICTORIANO, ET AL.

    105 Phil 194

  • G.R. No. L-12962 February 26, 1959 - EMILIO ALANO v. DANIEL PAGLINAWAN

    105 Phil 197

  • G.R. No. L-14262 February 26, 1959 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANTONIO MARTINEZ

    105 Phil 200

  • G.R. No. 9747 February 27, 1959 - ELKS CLUB v. UNITED LABORERS & EMPLOYEES OF THE ELKS CLUB

    105 Phil 204

  • G.R. No. L-10293 February 27, 1959 - COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. ORLANDO V. CALSADO, ET AL.

    105 Phil 208

  • G.R. No. L-10964 February 27, 1959 - LIM TIONG v. COURT OF TAX APPEALS, ET AL.

    105 Phil 212

  • G.R. No. L-12691 February 27, 1959 - SIMEON T. DAGDAG v. VICENTE NEPOMUCENO

    105 Phil 216

  • G.R. No. L-9998 February 28, 1959 - BRAULIO STO. DOMINGO v. CHUA MAN

    105 Phil 220

  • G.R. No. L-11317 February 28, 1959 - BENITA O. CHIOCO, ET AL. v. SEVERO ONGSIAPCO, ET AL.

    105 Phil 225

  • G.R. No. L-11606 February 28, 1959 - EUFROCIO BERMISO,ET AL. v. HIJOS DE F. ESCAÑO, INC., ET AL.

    105 Phil 231

  • G.R. No. L-11804 February 28, 1959 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DOMINADOR CIDRO

    105 Phil 238

  • G.R. No. L-12168 February 28, 1959 - EMILIO B. ALLER v. SERGIO OSMENA

    105 Phil 243

  • G.R. No. L-12333 February 28, 1959 - ASSOCIATED INSURANCE & SURETY CO. v. BACOLOD-MURCIA MILLING CO.

    105 Phil 245

  • G.R. No. L-12365 February 28, 1959 - WORLD WIDE INSURANCE & SURETY CO. v. BENITO MACROHON, ET AL.

    105 Phil 249

  • G.R. No. L-12433 February 28, 1959 - ERNESTO A. PAPA, ET AL. v. SEVERO J. SANTIAGO

    105 Phil 253

  • G.R. No. L-12540 February 28, 1959 - PEDRO MABANA, ET AL. v. MARCELINA MENDOZA, ET AL.

    105 Phil 260

  • G.R. No. L-13131 February 28, 1959 - EDILBERTO BAROT v. HON. JULIO VILLAMOR

    105 Phil 263