CUDIA V.

COURT OF APPEALS
G.R. NO. 110315 JANUARY 16, 1998

Romero, J:

Doctrine:
If the fiscal had no authority to file the information, the dismissal of the first information would
not be a bar to subsequent prosecution. Jeopardy does not attach where a defendant pleads guilty to a
defective indictment that is voluntarily dismissed by the prosecution.

Facts:
Cudia was arrested in Mabalacat, Pampanga allegedly for possessing an unlicensed revolver. He
was brought to Angeles City, where he was detained. The City Prosecutor of Angeles City filed an
information against him for illegal possession of firearms and ammunition. The Information states that
he committed the crime in Angeles City. The case was raffled to RTC Branch 60, Angeles City. Cudia
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 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.
However, the provincial prosecutor of Pampanga also filed an information charging petitioner
with the same crime of illegal possession of firearms and ammunition. The case was likewise raffled to
Branch 56 of the Angeles City RTC. This prompted the prosecutor in the first criminal case to file a
Motion to Dismiss/Withdraw the Information, it appearing that the apprehension of the accused was
made in Mabalacat, Pampanga, within the jurisdiction of the Provincial Prosecutor of Pampanga. The
trial court granted the motion.
Cudia then filed a Motion to Quash the second criminal case on the ground that his continued
prosecution for the offense of illegal possession of firearms and ammunition for which he had been
arraigned in the first criminal case, 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. CA affirmed that there was no double jeopardy on the ground that the petitioner could
not have been convicted under the first information as the same was defective.

Issue:
1. Whether or not Sapiera could be held civilly liable when she was acquitted in the
criminal charges against her?
2. Whether or not double jeopardy sets in?

Held:
1. Yes, Sapiera could be held civilly liable when she was acquitted in the criminal charges against
her.
2. No, double jeopardy does not set in.

Ratio:
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.
 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.
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, petitioners 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 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.

3. 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 petitioners
subsequent prosecution. Jeopardy does not attach where a defendant pleads guilty to a
defective indictment that is voluntarily dismissed by the prosecution

Dispositive:
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.