11/16/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 284

VOL. 284, JANUARY 16, 1998 173

Cudia vs. Court of Appeals

*
G.R. No. 110315. January 16, 1998.

RENATO CUDIA, petitioner, vs. THE COURT OF

APPEALS, The HON. CARLOS D. RUSTIA, in his capacity
as Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court Branch LVI,
Angeles City, respondents.

Constitutional Law; Criminal Procedure; Double Jeopardy;

Requisites in order to successfully invoke the defense 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.

_________________

* THIRD DIVISION.

174

174 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Cudia vs. Court of Appeals

Same; Same; Same; Essential requisites in determining when

the first jeopardy may be said to have attached.—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; (d) Valid plea; (e) The defendant was acquitted or
convicted or the case was dismissed or otherwise terminated
without the express consent of the accused.

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001671a578447b970f71b003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/11
11/16/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 284

Same; Same; Same; Jurisdiction; Jurisdiction is conferred by

law and not by mere administrative policy of any trial court.—
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. Writ
large in law-books is the doctrine that jurisdiction is conferred by
law and not by mere administrative policy of any trial court.
Same; Same; Same; Same; An information, when required to
be filed by a public prosecuting officer, cannot be filed by another.
—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.
Same; Same; Same; Same; An infirmity in the information,
such as lack of authority of the officer signing it, cannot be cured
by silence, acquiescence, or even by express consent.—Petitioner,
however, insists that his failure to assert the lack of authority of
the City Prosecutor in filing the information in question is
deemed a waiver thereof. As correctly pointed out by the Court of
Appeals, petitioner’s plea to an information before he filed a
motion to quash may be a waiver of all objections to it insofar as
formal objections to the pleadings are concerned. But by clear
implication, if not by express provision of the Rules of Court, and
by a long line of uniform decisions, questions relating to want of
jurisdiction may be raised at any stage of the proceeding. It is a
valid information signed by a competent officer which, among
other requisites, confers jurisdiction on the court over the person
of the accused (herein petitioner) and

175

VOL. 284, JANUARY 16, 1998 175

Cudia vs. Court of Appeals

the subject matter of the accusation. In consonance with this

view, an infirmity in the information, such as lack of authority of
the officer signing it, cannot be cured by silence, acquiescence, or
even by express consent.
Same; Same; Same; Jeopardy does not attach where a
defendant pleads guilty to a defective indictment that is

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001671a578447b970f71b003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 2/11
11/16/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 284

voluntarily dismissed by the prosecution.—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 petitioner’s
subsequent prosecution. Jeopardy does not attach where a
defendant pleads guilty to a defective indictment that is
voluntarily dismissed by the prosecution.
Same; Same; Same; Estoppel; The State is not bound or
estopped by the mistakes or inadvertence of its officials and
employees.—Petitioner next claims that the lack of authority of
the City Prosecutor was the error of the investigating panel and
the same should not be used to prejudice and penalize him. It is
an all too familiar maxim that the State is not bound or estopped
by the mistakes or inadvertence of its officials and employees. To
rule otherwise could very well result in setting felons free, deny
proper protection to the community, and give rise to the
possibility of connivance between the prosecutor and the accused.
Same; Same; Information; Even if amendment is proper,
pursuant to Section 14 of Rule 110, it is also quite plausible under
the same provision that, instead of an amendment, an information
may be dismissed to give way to the filing of a new information.—
Petitioner avers that an amendment of the first information, and
not its dismissal, should have been the remedy sought by the
prosecution. Suffice it to say that this Court, in Galvez vs. Court of
Appeals has ruled that even if amendment is proper, pursuant to
Section 14 of Rule 110, it is also quite plausible under the same
provision that, instead of an amendment, an information may be
dismissed to give way to the filing of a new information.

176

176 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Cudia vs. Court of Appeals

PETITION for review on certiorari of a decision of the

Court of Appeals.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

     Rene V. Sarmiento for petitioner.

ROMERO, J.:

1
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001671a578447b970f71b003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 3/11
11/16/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 284
1
Petitioner assails the decision of the Court of Appeals
dated May 14, 1993 dismissing his petition and finding
that he had not been placed in double jeopardy by the filing
of a second information against him, although a first
information charging the same offense had been previously
dismissed, over petitioner’s vigorous opposition.
The factual antecedents of the case are as follows:
On June 28, 1989, petitioner was2
arrested in Purok 6,
Barangay Santa Inez, Mabalacat, Pampanga, by members
of the then 174th PC Company, allegedly for possessing an
unlicensed revolver. He was brought to Camp Pepito, Sto.
Domingo, Angeles City, where he was detained. A
preliminary investigation was thereafter conducted by an
investigating panel of prosecutors. As a result thereof, the
City Prosecutor of Angeles City filed an information
against him for illegal possession of firearms and
ammunition, docketed as Criminal Case No. 11542, which
reads as follows:

“That on or about the 28th day of June, 1989, in the City of

Angeles, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable
Court, the above-named accused, did then and there willfully,
unlawfully and feloniously have in his possession and under his
control one (1) .38 Cal. Revolver (paltik) without any Serial
Number with six (6) live ammunitions, which he carried outside of
his residence without having the necessary authority and permit
to carry the same.

_________________

1 Penned by J. Guingona, Asaali and Martinez, JJ., concurring.

2 The Municipality of Mabalacat is approximately 10 kms. north of Angeles
City, Pampanga.

177

VOL. 284, JANUARY 16, 1998 177

Cudia vs. Court of Appeals
3
ALL CONTRARY TO LAW.” (Emphasis petitioner’s.)

The case was raffled to Branch 60 of the Regional Trial

Court of Angeles City (hereafter the Angeles City RTC).
Upon his arraignment on August 14, 1989, petitioner
pleaded “not guilty” to the charges. During the ensuing pre-
trial, the court called the attention of the parties to the fact
that, contrary to the information, petitioner had committed
the offense in Mabalacat, and not in Angeles City.
Inasmuch as there was an existing arrangement among the
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001671a578447b970f71b003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 4/11
11/16/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 284

judges of the Angeles City RTCs as to who would handle

cases involving crimes committed outside of Angeles City,
the judge ordered the re-raffling of the case to a branch
assigned to criminal cases involving crimes committed
outside of the city. Thereafter, the case was assigned to
Branch 56 of the Angeles City RTC.
On October 31, 1989 however, the provincial prosecutor
of Pampanga also filed an information charging petitioner
with the same crime of illegal possession of firearms and
ammunition, docketed as Criminal Case No. 11987. The
case was likewise raffled to Branch 56 of the Angeles City
RTC. This prompted the prosecutor in Criminal Case No.
11542 to file a Motion to Dismiss/Withdraw the
Information, stating “that thru inadvertence and oversight,
the Investigating Panel was misled into hastily filing the
Information in this case, it appearing that the
apprehension of the accused in connection with the illegal
possession of unlicensed firearm and ammunition was
made in Bgy. Sta. Inez, Mabalacat, Pampanga, within4 the
jurisdiction of the Provincial Prosecutor of Pampanga” and
that the Provincial Prosecutor had filed its own
information against the accused, as a result of which two
separate informations for the same offense had been filed
against petitioner. The latter filed his opposition to the
motion, but the trial court nonetheless, granted said
motion to dismiss in its order dated April 3, 1990.

___________________

3 Rollo, p. 12.
4 Ibid., p. 13.

178

178 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Cudia vs. Court of Appeals

On May 21, 1990, petitioner filed a Motion to Quash

Criminal Case No. 11987 on the ground that his continued
prosecution for the offense of illegal possession of firearms
and ammunition—for which he had been arraigned in
Criminal Case No. 11542, and which had been dismissed
despite his opposition—would violate his right not to be put
twice in jeopardy of punishment for the same offense. The
trial court denied the motion to quash; hence, petitioner
raised the issue to the Court of Appeals. The appellate
court, stating that there was no double jeopardy, dismissed
the same on the ground that the petitioner could not have
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001671a578447b970f71b003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 5/11
11/16/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 284

been convicted under the first information as the same was

defective. Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was
denied; hence, this appeal.
Petitioner points out the following as errors of the Court
of Appeals:

1. THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED WHEN IT

FOUND THAT THE CITY PROSECUTOR OF
ANGELES CITY DID NOT HAVE THE
AUTHORITY TO FILE THE FIRST
INFORMATION.
2. THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN HOLDING
THAT THE FIRST JEOPARDY DID NOT ATTACH
BECAUSE THE FIRST INFORMATION FILED
AGAINST THE ACCUSED WAS NOT VALID.

We shall discuss the assigned errors jointly as they are

closely related.
Section 21, Article III of the 1987 Constitution provides
that “(n)o person shall be twice put in jeopardy of
punishment for the same offense x x x.” Pursuant to this
provision, Section 7 of Rule 117 of the Rules of Court
provides in part that “(w)hen an accused has been
convicted or acquitted, or the case against him dismissed or
otherwise terminated without his express consent by a
court of competent jurisdiction, upon a valid complaint or
information or other formal charge sufficient in form and
substance to sustain a conviction and after the accused had
pleaded to the charge, the conviction or ac-
179

VOL. 284, JANUARY 16, 1998 179

Cudia vs. Court of Appeals

quittal of the accused or the dismissal of the case shall be a

bar to another prosecution for the offense charged, x x x.”
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
5
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:
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001671a578447b970f71b003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 6/11
11/16/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 284

(a) Court of competent jurisdiction

(b) Valid complaint or information
(c) Arraignment
(d) Valid plea
(e) The defendant was acquitted or convicted or the
case was dismissed or otherwise terminated 6
without the express consent of the accused.

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. The Court
of Appeals and the Solicitor General agreed that Branch
60, which originally had cognizance of Criminal Case No.
11542, had no jurisdiction over the case. In the words of the
Solicitor General:

_____________________

5 Guerrero vs. Court of Appeals, 257 SCRA 703 (1996).

6 Ibid.

180

180 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Cudia vs. Court of Appeals

“The first jeopardy did not also attach because Branch 60 of the
Regional Trial Court of Angeles City was not the proper venue for
hearing the case. Venue in criminal cases is jurisdictional, being
an essential element of jurisdiction (Agbayani vs. Sayo, 89 SCRA
699). In all criminal prosecutions, the action shall be instituted
and tried in the court of the municipality or territory wherein the
offense was committed or any one of the essential ingredients
thereof took place (People vs. Tomio, 202 SCRA 77). Although
both Branches 60 and 56 are sitting in Angeles City, it is Branch
56 which has jurisdiction to try offenses committed in Mabalacat,
Pampanga. 7 Petitioner was arraigned before Branch 60, not
Branch 56.”

It must be borne in mind that the question of jurisdiction of

a court over cases filed before it must be resolved on the

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001671a578447b970f71b003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 7/11
11/16/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 284

basis of the law or statute providing for or defining its

jurisdiction. Administrative Order No. 7, Series of 1983
provides that:

“Pursuant to the provisions of Section 18 of B.P. Blg. 129, the

Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980, and Section 4 of Executive
Order No. 864 of the President of the Philippines, dated January
17, 1983, the territorial areas of the Regional Trial Court in
Region One to Twelve are hereby defined as follows:
x x x     x x x     x x x
PAMPANGA
x x x     x x x     x x x
1. Branches LVI to LXII, inclusive, with seats at Angeles City
—comprising ANGELES CITY and the municipalities of
Mabalacat, Magalang, and Porac as well as part of Clark Field
U.S. Airbase.
x x x     x x x     x x x.”

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. Writ large in lawbooks is the
doctrine that jurisdiction is

____________________

7 Rollo, pp. 56-57.

181

VOL. 284, JANUARY 16, 1998 181

Cudia vs. Court of Appeals

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. Presidential Decree No.
1275, in relation to Section 9 of the Administrative Code of
1987, pertinently provides that:

“Section 11. The provincial or the city fiscal shall:

x x x     x x x     x x x
b) Investigate and/or cause to be investigated all charges of
crimes, misdemeanors and violations of all penal laws and
ordinances within their respective jurisdictions and have the
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001671a578447b970f71b003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 8/11
11/16/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 284

necessary information or complaint prepared or made against the

persons accused. In the conduct of such investigations he or his
assistants shall receive the sworn statements or take oral
evidence of witnesses summoned by subpoena for the purpose.
x x x     x x x     x x x.” (Emphasis supplied)

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 filed8 by
a public prosecuting officer, cannot be filed by another. It
must be exhibited or presented by the prosecuting attorney
or someone authorized9
by law. If not, the court does not
acquire jurisdiction.
Petitioner, however, insists that his failure to assert the
lack of authority of the City Prosecutor in filing10 the
information in question is deemed a waiver thereof. As
correctly pointed out by the Court of Appeals, petitioner’s
plea to an information before he filed a motion to quash
may be a waiver of all objections to it insofar as formal
objections to the

__________________

8 42 CJS Indictments and Informations § 67.

9 41 Am Jur 2d, Indictments and Informations, § 41.
10 See Section 8, Rule 117 in relation to Section 3(c), Rule 117.

182

182 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Cudia vs. Court of Appeals

pleadings are concerned. But by clear implication, if not by

express provision of the11
Rules of Court, and by a long line
of uniform decisions, questions relating to want of
jurisdiction may be raised at any stage of the proceeding. It
is a valid information signed by a competent officer which,
among other requisites, confers jurisdiction on the court
over the person of the accused (herein petitioner) and the
subject matter of the accusation. In consonance with this
view, an infirmity in the information, such as lack of
authority of the officer signing it, cannot be 12cured by
silence, acquiescence, or even by express consent.
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
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001671a578447b970f71b003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 9/11
11/16/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 284

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 petitioner’s subsequent prosecution.
Jeopardy does not attach where a defendant pleads guilty
to a defective indictment
13
that is voluntarily dismissed by
the prosecution.
Petitioner next claims that the lack of authority of the
City Prosecutor was the error of the investigating panel
and the same should not be used to prejudice and penalize
him. It is an all too familiar maxim that the State is not
bound or estopped by the 14
mistakes or inadvertence of its
officials and employees. To rule otherwise could very well
result in setting felons free, deny proper protection to the
community, and

____________________

11 See Estrada vs. NLRC, 262 SCRA 709 (1996); Amigo vs. Court of
Appeals, 253 SCRA 382 (1996); De Leon vs. Court of Appeals, 245 SCRA
166 (1995); Lozon vs. NLRC, 240 SCRA 1 (1995).
12 Villa vs. Ibañez, 88 Phil. 402.
13 U.S. vs. McClure, 356 F2d 939.
14 DBP vs. COA, 231 SCRA 202 (1994) citing Cruz, Jr. vs. CA, 194
SCRA 145 (1991).

183

VOL. 284, JANUARY 16, 1998 183

Cudia vs. Court of Appeals

give rise to the possibility of connivance between the

prosecutor and the accused.
Finally, petitioner avers that an amendment of the first
information, and not its dismissal, should have been the
remedy sought by the prosecution. Suffice
15
it to say that this
Court, in Galvez vs. Court of Appeals has ruled that even
if amendment is proper, pursuant to Section 14 of Rule 110,
it is also quite plausible under the same provision that,
instead of an amendment, an information may be
dismissed to give way to the filing of a new information.
In light of the foregoing principles, there is thus no
breach of the constitutional prohibition against twice
putting an accused in jeopardy of punishment for the same
offense for the simple reason that the absence of authority
of the City Prosecutor to file the first information meant

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001671a578447b970f71b003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 10/11
11/16/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 284

that petitioner could never have been convicted on the

strength thereof.
As the first information was fatally defective for lack of
authority of the officer filing it, the instant petition must
fail for failure to comply with all the requisites necessary to
invoke double jeopardy.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is
hereby DENIED. The decision of the Court of Appeals in
CA-G.R. SP No. 24958 is AFFIRMED. No costs.
SO ORDERED.

          Narvasa (C.J., Chairman), Melo, Francisco and

Panganiban, JJ., concur.

Petition denied.

Note.—Where the right of the accused to speedy trial

has not been violated, he cannot invoke the right against
double jeopardy. (People vs. Leviste, 255 SCRA 238 [1996])

——o0o——

___________________

15 237 SCRA 685.

184

© Copyright 2018 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001671a578447b970f71b003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 11/11