People v. Cayosa
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Hermogenes Cayosa was arrested based on a warrant issued by the Justice of the Peace Court of Dulay, Leyte, to answer a charge of acts of lasciviousness allegedly committed on the person of Celenia Galarosa, a minor. The complaint was signed by the minor's mother and subscribed before the Municipal Mayor of Dulay, Leyte, and was supported by affidavits of the offended girl and another witness, also subscribed before the same municipal official. Procedural History: The accused, Hermogenes Cayosa, renounced his right to a preliminary investigation, and the case was remanded to the Court of First Instance of Leyte. An information was filed, and the accused, assisted by counsel, pleaded not guilty. During the hearing, the accused's counsel moved for dismissal, arguing that the complaint and supporting affidavits were defective for being subscribed before the Municipal Mayor instead of the Justice of the Peace, as allegedly required by Republic Act 3828. The trial court denied the motion, deeming the defect waived by the accused's plea. The accused appealed this denial. The Appeal: The defendant-appellant raised the sole issue of whether the trial court had jurisdiction to try the case, given that the complaint was subscribed before the Municipal Mayor and not the Justice of the Peace, as he contended was required by Republic Act 3828. He argued that this defect rendered the warrant of arrest invalid and deprived the court of jurisdiction.
Issue(s)
Whether the subscription of the complaint before the Municipal Mayor, instead of the Justice of the Peace, deprived the court of jurisdiction over the person of the accused. Whether the denial of the motion to dismiss is an appealable order.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the lower court denying the motion to dismiss. The case was remanded for further trial and decision on the merits. The appellant was assessed treble costs.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of jurisdiction and waiver: The Court held that the appellant's failure to raise the objection regarding the subscription of the complaint before pleading to the charge was fatal to his cause. Under Section 10, Rule 117 of the Rules of Court, such failure constitutes a waiver of all objections that could be grounds for a motion to quash, except when the complaint or information does not charge an offense or the court is without jurisdiction over the offense. The defect alleged by the appellant pertained to jurisdiction over the person, which is deemed waived by pleading to the merits. Furthermore, the Court noted that the complaint substantially satisfied the requirements for sufficiency, and the defect adverted to was one of form, curable by amendment. Even the absence of an oath does not necessarily render a complaint invalid, unless it charges a private offense, which was not the case here. On the appealability of the denial of the motion to dismiss: The Court ruled that the denial of the motion to dismiss was not a final order as it did not terminate the proceedings in the lower court. Consequently, it was not an appealable order under Section 1, Rule 122 of the Rules of Court. The proper procedure for the accused was to proceed with the trial until judgment on the merits and then, if convicted, reiterate his objections in an appeal from the judgment.
Main Doctrine
The Supreme Court reiterated that an accused waives objections to the complaint or information, including those pertaining to jurisdiction over the person, if such objections are not raised before pleading to the charge. Additionally, the Court affirmed that an order denying a motion to dismiss is interlocutory and thus not subject to an immediate appeal, requiring the accused to proceed to trial and raise the issue on appeal from the final judgment.