TOPIC Complaint or Information (Rule 110 Sections 2, 3 and 4)

CASE NO. G.R. No. 110315

CASE NAME Cudia v. CA
MEMBER Austin Tulauan

DOCTRINE
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.

RECIT-READY DIGEST
Cudia was arrested in Mabalacat, Pampanga allegedly for possessing an unlicensed firearm. The
City Prosecutor of Angeles City filed an information against him for illegal possession of firearms and
ammunition. The Provincial Prosecutor of Pampanga also filed an information charging petitioner with the
same offense. This prompted the prosecutor of Angeles City to file a motion to dismiss the information they
filed. The trial court granted said motion. The petitioner filed a motion to quash the second information on
the ground that his continued prosecution under such information violated his right against double jeopardy.
The trial court denied the motion to quash; hence, petitioner raised the issue to the Court of Appeals. The
CA, stating that there was no double jeopardy, dismissed the same on the ground that the petitioner could
not have been convicted under the first information as the same was defective. Petitioner's motion for
reconsideration was denied; hence his appeal.
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 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. Moreover, jeopardy does not attach where a defendant pleads guilty to a defective indictment
that is voluntarily dismissed by the prosecution. There is thus no breach of the constitutional prohibition
against double jeopardy for the reason that the absence of authority of the City Prosecutor to file the first
information meant that petitioner could never have been convicted on the strength thereof.

FACTS
• Petitioner, Renato Cudia, was arrested in Pampanga allegedly for possessing an unlicensed .38 Cal.
Revolver with 6 live ammunitions. He was brought to Camp Pepito, Angeles City, where he was
detained. After conducting a preliminary investigation, the City Prosecutor of Angeles City filed an
information against Cudia for illegal possession of firearms and ammunition.
• Cudia was already arraigned and has pleaded “not guilty” to the charges.
• The case was raffled to Branch 60 Angeles City RTC. During the pre-trial, the court called the attention
of the parties to the fact that, contrary to the information, Cudia had committed the offense in
Mabalacat, and not in Angeles City. So the judge ordered the re-raffling of the case to a branch assigned
to criminal cases involving crimes committed outside of the city. So 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. The case was likewise raffled to Branch 56 of the Angeles City RTC.
• This prompted the prosecutor in the first information to file a Motion to Dismiss/Withdraw the
Information, stating that two separate informations for the same offense had been filed against
petitioner. Although Cudia opposed this, Angeles City RTC granted the Motion to Dismiss the
Information.

1
• Subsequently, Cudia 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 against double jeopardy.
• RTC denied the motion to quash. So Cudia raised the issue to CA. The CA, stating that there was no
double jeopardy, dismissed Cudia’s motion for reconsideration on the ground that the he could not have
been convicted under the first information as the same was defective. Hence, this appeal.

ISSUE/S and HELD

1. W/N the City Prosecutor of Angeles City did not have the authority to file the first information, and
therefore, the first jeopardy did not attach? – YES

RATIO
1. 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.
2. 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; and (e) The defendant was acquitted or convicted or the case was
dismissed or otherwise terminated without the express consent of the accused.
3. It is undisputed that petitioner was arraigned in the First Criminal Case, that he pleaded "not guilty"
therein, and that the same was dismissed without his express consent (requisites c,d,e).
4. As to the first requisite (Court of competent jurisdiction):
a. 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.
b. 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. Petitioner was arraigned before
Branch 60, not Branch 56.
5. As to the second requisite (Valid complaint or information):
a. 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.
b. 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.
6. 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.
a. 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.
b. Jeopardy does not attach where a defendant pleads guilty to a defective indictment that is
voluntarily dismissed by the prosecution.
7. 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. However, the State is not bound
or estopped by the mistakes or inadvertence of its officials and employees.

DISPOSTIVE PORTION
Wherefore petition is DENIED. CA decision AFFIRMED.