MURAO, JOSE PEPITO III

I. Article III Section 21, Attachment of Jeopardy:

Cudia v. CA G.R. No. 110315

Facts:
On June 28, 1989, herein accused-appellant Renato Cudia was arrested in Mabalacat Pampanga for
allegedly possessing an unlincensed revolver. After detention and preliminary investigation, an information
was filed against him for illegal possession of firearms and ammunition. During trial, the court called the
attention of the parties to the error contained in the information that the offense was committed in
Mabalact, not in Angeles City as the information asserts. The case was re-raffled to a branch assigned to
criminal cases involving crimes committed outside the city.
However, on October 31, 1989, the provincial prosecutor of Pampanga also filed an information, charging
petitioner Cudia of the same crime and the case was likewise assigned to Branch 56 of the Angeles City
Regional Trial Court, the same branch handling Cudia’s original charges. The prosecutor for the first case
filed a Motion to Dismiss as the investigating panel for the first case immediately filed an information
whereas the proper case is the subsequent one filed by the Provincial Prosecutor of Pampanga under whose
jurisdiction the crime was committed. The trial court granted said motion to dismiss.
Given this, Cudia filed a Motion to Quash the second criminal case as he had already been arraigned under
the first criminal case and that the continuance of the second case would violate his right against double
jeopardy. The trial court and Court of Appeals rejected the motion of herein petitioner on the grounds that
Cudia was never convicted and the first information was defective.
Issue: W/N the Court of Appeals erred in holding that the first jeopardy did not attach because the first
information filed was not valid due to lack of authority to file by the city prosecutor?
Held:
NO. For the first jeopardy to attach, it is necessary to prove the following:
(a) Court of competent jurisdiction
(b) Valid complaint or information
(c) Arraignment
(d) Valid plea
(e) Defendant was acquitted or convicted or the case was dismissed or otherwise terminated without
express consent of the accused
Although the court wherein the complaint was filed had jurisdiction of petitioner Cudia’s case, the city
prosecutor who filed the initial information did not have jurisdiction of informations for offenses
committed within Pampanga but outside of Angeles City. It is the provincial prosecutor of Pampanga who
had jurisdiction over such crimes hence; the original complaint filed was not valid. Jeopardy did not attach
in the initial information. Petition is hereby DENIED.