GR L 10427; (May, 1957) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-10427; May 27, 1957
EULOGIO MILL, petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES and HON. NICASIO YATCO, Judge of the Court of First Instance of Rizal, respondents.
FACTS
Executive Orders Nos. 400 and 58 created the City of Greater Manila, absorbing Quezon City. On August 8, 1946, an information for murder allegedly committed in Quezon City (then part of Greater Manila) was filed against petitioner Eulogio Mill in the Court of First Instance of Manila (Criminal Case No. 221). Petitioner was arraigned and pleaded not guilty on December 14, 1955. Prior to this arraignment, Republic Act No. 54 , enacted on October 10, 1946, repealed the executive orders and restored Quezon City as a separate city. On January 3, 1956, petitioner filed a motion to quash the information in the Manila court, arguing it lost jurisdiction upon the enactment of Republic Act No. 54 . The Manila court granted the motion and dismissed the case on January 16, 1956, directing the Quezon City Attorney to take appropriate action. On January 21, 1956, the Quezon City Attorney filed a new information for the same murder in the Court of First Instance of Rizal (Quezon City Branch), docketed as Criminal Case No. Q-1907. Petitioner pleaded not guilty to the amended information. Subsequently, on February 21, 1956, petitioner filed a motion to withdraw his plea of not guilty and to file a motion to quash, alleging double jeopardy. The respondent Judge denied the motion to quash and a subsequent motion for reconsideration. Petitioner then filed the present certiorari and prohibition proceedings with a prayer for a preliminary injunction to prevent the trial in Criminal Case No. Q-1907, which this Court granted.
ISSUE
Whether the remedies of certiorari and prohibition lie against the respondent Judge’s order denying the motion to quash based on double jeopardy.
RULING
No, the remedies of certiorari and prohibition do not lie. The Court held that an order denying a motion to quash is an interlocutory order, not a final judgment, and is therefore not appealable. Citing precedent, the Court ruled that neither certiorari nor prohibition is available against such an order when the court has jurisdiction over the case and the motion. The proper remedy for the petitioner is to go to trial, and if an adverse judgment is rendered, to appeal therefrom, at which time the double jeopardy issue can be raised. Consequently, the petition was dismissed and the preliminary injunction was set aside.