Title
Cudia vs. Court of Appeals
Case
G.R. No. 110315
Decision Date
Jan 16, 1998
Petitioner charged with illegal firearm possession; first case dismissed due to jurisdictional error, second case upheld as double jeopardy did not apply.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 110315)

Procedural History

– Branch 60 RTC in Angeles City initially received Case No. 11542.
– During pre-trial, venue defect noted: offense occurred in Mabalacat, not Angeles City; case re-raffled to Branch 56.
– On October 31, 1989, Provincial Prosecutor of Pampanga filed a second information (Case No. 11987) charging the same offense; also raffled to Branch 56.
– Prosecutor in No. 11542 moved to dismiss first information, conceding lack of proper authority; granted April 3, 1990 over petitioner’s opposition.
– Petitioner moved to quash No. 11987 on double jeopardy grounds; RTC denied motion.
– Court of Appeals affirmed denial, ruling no double jeopardy because first information was invalid.

Legal Issues

  1. Whether the Angeles City City Prosecutor had authority to file the first information.
  2. Whether dismissal of the first information constitutes jeopardy that bars the second prosecution under the Double Jeopardy Clause.

Requisites of Double Jeopardy

Under Rule 117, Section 7, double jeopardy attaches only if:
(a) A prior valid information or complaint was filed by an authorized officer;
(b) Jeopardy attached by arraignment and plea;
(c) The prior case was terminated without petitioner’s consent; and
(d) The second prosecution charges the same offense.

Jurisdiction and Validity of the First Information

– Venue and jurisdiction in criminal cases are defined by law, not internal court arrangements (Agbayani v. Sayo; People v. Tomio).
– Administrative Order No. 7 (1983) apportioned Pampanga crimes to RTC Branches LVI–LXII; Branch 60 had jurisdiction over Mabalacat offenses.
– However, authority to file an information lies with the public prosecutor whose territorial jurisdiction covers the offense. PD 1275 and the Administrative Code vest this power in the Provincial Prosecutor of Pampanga for crimes outside Angeles City.
– The City Prosecutor’s filing of No. 11542 was unauthorized; an information signed by an incompetent officer is fatally defective and does not confer jurisdiction.

Authority of Prosecuting Officer and Curing Defects

– A defect in prosecutorial authority cannot be waived by the accused nor cured by silence or plea (Section 8, Rule 117; Villa v. Ibañez).
– Jurisdictional infirmities may be challenged at any stage.
– Estoppel cannot bind the State to its officers’ mistakes; allowing it would jeopardize public interest.

A


...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.