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 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."  In  other  words,  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 vs. 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:

"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 vs. 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 vs. 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.