Facts:

This case involves Gavino Conjurado and Jorgia Morales as petitioners against Honorable Modesto R. Ramolete, Judge of the Court of First Instance of Surigao, and Vedasto R. Niere, Assistant Provincial Fiscal of Surigao, as respondents. The events leading to this petition began on November 27, 1950, when the petitioners were accused of frustrated murder in the Justice of the Peace Court of Dapa, Surigao, under Criminal Case No. 4388. A warrant of arrest was issued but was sent to the Court of First Instance for certification for service in another province. The district judge, believing the charge was serious physical injuries rather than frustrated murder, returned the warrant without certification. Subsequently, the Chief of Police of Dapa amended the charge to serious physical injuries, but the warrant was never served due to the petitioners' unknown whereabouts. On April 4, 1951, the Chief of Police moved for the provisional dismissal of the case, which was granted.

Facts:

1. Initial Charge and Warrant Issuance:

   • On November 27, 1950, petitioners Gavino Conjurado and Jorgia Morales were accused of frustrated murder in Criminal Case No. 4388 before the Justice of the Peace Court of Dapa, Surigao.
   • A warrant of arrest was issued but returned by the district judge, who believed the crime was serious physical injuries, not frustrated murder.

2. Amendment and Dismissal of the Case:

   • The Chief of Police amended the charge to serious physical injuries, and a new warrant was issued. However, the warrant was never served as the petitioners' whereabouts were unknown.
   • On April 4, 1951, the Chief of Police moved for the provisional dismissal of Criminal Case No. 4388, which was granted.

3. Revival of the Case:

   • On December 11, 1952, respondent Fiscal Vedasto R. Niere revived the case by charging the petitioners with serious physical injuries in Criminal Case No. 4449.
   • The charge was later amended on April 17, 1953, to frustrated murder.

4. Motion to Quash and Prohibition Case:

   • Petitioners moved to quash the amended information, arguing that the Peace Court lacked jurisdiction as the first stage of the preliminary investigation was not conducted.
   • The motion was denied, and petitioners filed a prohibition case (Civil Case No. 639) before the Court of First Instance.
   • Judge Francisco Area ruled that the dismissal of Criminal Case No. 4388 nullified all prior proceedings, necessitating a new preliminary investigation for Criminal Case No. 4449.

5. Amended Information and Preliminary Investigation:

   • On March 1, 1954, respondent Fiscal filed an amended information in Criminal Case No. 4449, charging frustrated murder.
   • The Peace Court conducted the first stage of the preliminary investigation, issued a warrant of arrest, and petitioners posted bail.
   • Petitioners waived their right to the second stage of the preliminary investigation, and the case was elevated to the Court of First Instance as Criminal Case No. 1575.

6. Motion to Quash in the Court of First Instance:

   • Petitioners moved to quash the information in Criminal Case No. 1575, citing lack of jurisdiction, prescription, grave abuse of discretion, and double jeopardy.
   • Respondent Judge Modesto R. Ramolete denied the motion, ruling that the crime of frustrated murder had not prescribed, and the Fiscal was within his rights to amend the information.

7. Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition:

   • Petitioners sought to annul the orders of February 9 and 26, 1955, and to restrain the Fiscal from filing new information.

Issue:

• (Unlock)

Ruling:

• (Unlock)

Ratio:

1. Double Jeopardy: Double jeopardy does not apply if the accused were never arrested or arraigned in the first case.
2. Jurisdiction: The Court of First Instance acquires jurisdiction when the case is elevated after a proper preliminary investigation, even if the accused waives their right to the second stage.
3. Prescription: The prescriptive period for frustrated murder is 15 years, and the filing of the case within this period prevents prescription.
4. Amendment of Information: Under Section 13, Rule 106 of the Rules of Court, the Fiscal may amend the information in substance or form before the accused pleads.