Case Digest (G.R. No. 129472)
Case Digest (G.R. No. 129472)
Facts:
Marcelo Lasoy and Felix Banisa v. Hon. Monina A. Zenarosa, G.R. No. 129472, April 12, 2005, Supreme Court Second Division, Chico‑Nazario, J., writing for the Court.On July 3, 1996 an Information was filed by Assistant City Prosecutor Evelyn Dimaculangan‑Querijero charging Marcelo Lasoy and Felix Banisa with unlawfully selling or offering for sale 42.410 grams of dried marijuana fruiting tops; the case was docketed as Criminal Case No. Q‑96‑66788 and raffled to RTC Branch 103, Quezon City, presided over by Judge Jaime N. Salazar, Jr. On July 16, 1996 both accused, with counsel, pleaded guilty and were convicted and sentenced to six months and one day; they applied for probation the same date.
On August 28, 1996 the People, through a different prosecutor, moved to admit an amended Information alleging that the correct facts were transportation and delivery of forty‑five pieces of dried marijuana fruiting tops weighing approximately 42.410 kilos (not grams), and separately moved to set aside the prior arraignment and decision. On September 3, 1996 Branch 103 denied the motion to admit the amended Information as untimely but granted the motion to set aside the prior arraignment and decision, citing this Court’s earlier resolution in Gulhoran and Bobares v. Escano, Jr. and concluding the Metropolitan Trial Court had jurisdiction over small‑quantity drug cases. The prosecution’s amended Information (alleging 42.410 kilos) was then filed and assigned to RTC Branch 76, Quezon City (presided over by Judge Monina A. Zenarosa) as Criminal Case No. Q‑96‑67572.
Accused filed a Motion to Quash in Branch 76; while that motion was pending they filed a petition for certiorari in the Court of Appeals but later withdrew it. Branch 76 denied the Motion to Quash in a February 14, 1997 resolution and denied reconsideration April 16, 1997. The accused thereupon filed a Petition for Certiorari with prayer for injunction and TRO before this Court, contending (A) the first Information was valid and they were placed in double jeopardy by the subsequent prosecution; and (B) Branch 103 had jurisdiction.
This Court required comments in July 1997; the People filed comments on November 18, 1998; accused replied March 2, 2000; memoranda were filed thereafter. The trial court had relied on allegations that the first Information was altered (reducing the stated quantity from kilos to grams) and that accused had “participated/acquiesced” in such tampering; an administrative complaint later found tampering occurred in the Branch 103 Information but did not implicate the accused. The issues before this Court were whether the first Information was valid and whether the RTC had jurisdiction to try the case.
Issues:
- Is the first Information (charging sale of 42.410 grams) a valid information such that the accused were placed in double jeopardy after arraignment, plea and conviction?
- Did the Regional Trial Court (Branch 103) have jurisdiction to try the offense alleged in the first Information, or did jurisdiction lie elsewhere?
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)