CUDIA v CA G.R. No.

110 315 (1998)

300 Appeal - DENIED
3D, Romero
On June 28, 1989, petitioner Renato Cudia was arrested in Mabalacat allegedly for possessing an unlicensed revolver.
Thereafter, an Information was filed against him for illegal possession of firearms and ammunition by the City Prosecutor of Angeles
City. The case was raffled to Br. 60 of RTC Angeles City. Upon his arraignment, petitioner pleaded not guilty to the charges. The
case was later reraffled to Br 56 of RTC Angeles City.
On Oct. 31, the provincial prosecutor of Pampanga also filed an Information with the same charge and the case was raffled to Br.
56 of RTC Angeles City. This prompted the City Prosec to file a MTD/Motion to Withdraw the Information pertaining to the first
Inforrmation it appearing that accused was apprehended in Mabalacat and thus within the jurisdiction of the Provl Prosec. The court
granted the MTD.
Petitioner filed a MTQ the second criminal case on the ground that this violates his right against double jeopardy. RTC denied the
MTQ. CA affirmed saying there was no double jeopardy.
Petitioner filed the instant appeal.
WON there is double jeopardy when the first info is invalid. NO
REQUISITES OF DOUBLE JEOPARDY
In order to successfully invoke the defense of double jeopardy, the following requisites must be present: (1) a first jeopardy must have
attached prior to the second; (2) the first jeopardy must have been validly terminated; and (3) the second jeopardy must be for the
same offense or the second offense includes or is necessarily included in the offense charged in the first information, or is an attempt to
commit the same or a frustration thereof.
In determining when the first jeopardy may be said to have attached, it is necessary to prove the existence of the following:
(a) Court of competent jurisdiction
(b) Valid complaint or information
(c) Arraignment
(c) Valid plea
(e) The defendant was acquitted or convicted or the case was dismissed or otherwise terminated without the express consent of the
accused.
~NO VALID INFORMATION => NO DOUBLE JEOPARDY
It is undisputed that petitioner was arraigned in Criminal Case No. 11542, that he pleaded not guilty therein, and that the same was
dismissed without his express consent, nay, over his opposition even. We may thus limit the discussion to determining whether the first
two requisites have been met.
As to the first requisite, it is necessary that there be a court of competent jurisdiction, for jurisdiction to try the case is essential to place
an accused in jeopardy.
Clearly, Branches 56 to 62 had jurisdiction over the respective territories as apportioned. Consequently, notwithstanding the internal
arrangement of the judges of the Angeles City RTCs, Branch 60 indubitably had jurisdiction over instant case. Written largely in
lawbooks is the doctrine that jurisdiction is conferred by law and not by mere administrative policy of any trial court.
With respect to the second requisite, however, it is plainly apparent that the City Prosecutor of Angeles City had no authority to file the
first information, the offense having been committed in the Municipality of Mabalacat, which is beyond his jurisdiction.
It is thus the Provincial Prosecutor of Pampanga, not the City Prosecutor, who should prepare informations for offenses committed
within Pampanga but outside of Angeles City. An information, when required to be filed by a public prosecuting officer, cannot be filed
by another. It must be exhibited or presented by the prosecuting attorney or someone authorized by law. If not, the court does not
acquire jurisdiction.
XXX
In fine, there must have been a valid and sufficient complaint or information in the former prosecution. If, therefore, the
complaint or information was insufficient because it was so defective in form or substance that the conviction upon it could
not have been sustained, its dismissal without the consent of the accused cannot be pleaded. As the fiscal had no authority
to file the information, the dismissal of the first information would not be a bar to petitioners subsequent
prosecution. Jeopardy does not attach where a defendant pleads guilty to a defective indictment that is voluntarily dismissed
by the prosecution.