31. LASOY ET. AL. VS.
ZENAROSA Same;  Same; Same;  The only instance when double jeopardy will not
360 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Lasoy vs. Zenarosa
G.R. No. 129472. April 12, 2005.*
MARCELO LASOY and FELIX BANISA, petitioners, vs. HON. MONINA A.
ZENAROSA, PRESIDING JUDGE, RTC, BR. 76, QUEZON CITY, and THE
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents.
Criminal Procedure;  Double Jeopardy; Requisites to Invoke the
Defense of Double Jeopardy.—To invoke the defense of double jeopardy,
the following requisites must be present: (1) a valid complaint or information;
(2) the court has jurisdiction to try the case; (3) the accused has pleaded to
the charge; and (4) he has been convicted or acquitted or the case against
him dismissed or otherwise terminated without his express consent.
Same;  Same; Same;  An information is valid as long as it distinctly
states the statutory designation of the offense and the acts or
_______________
*
 SECOND DIVISION.
361
VOL. 455, APRIL 12, 2005 361
Lasoy vs. Zenarosa
omissions constitutive thereof.—An information is valid as long as it
distinctly states the statutory designation of the offense and the acts or
omissions constitutive thereof. In other words, if the offense is stated in such
a way that a person of ordinary intelligence may immediately know what is
meant, and the court can decide the matter according to law, the inevitable
conclusion is that the information is valid. It is not necessary to follow the
language of the statute in the information. The information will be sufficient if
it describes the crime defined by law.
Same;  Same; Same;  Except where the death penalty is imposed a
judgment (of conviction) becomes final after the lapse of the period for
perfecting an appeal, or when the sentence has been partially or totally
satisfied or served, or when the accused has waived in writing his right to
appeal, or has applied for probation.—In Philippine Rabbit Bus Lines v.
People, the Court affirming the finality of a decision in a criminal case, citing
Section 7, Rule 120 of the 2000 Rules on Criminal Procedure, stated: A
judgment of conviction may, upon motion of the accused, be modified or set
aside before it becomes final or before appeal is perfected. Except where the
death penalty is imposed a judgment [of conviction] becomes final after the
lapse of the period for perfecting an appeal, or when the sentence has been
partially or totally satisfied or served, or when the accused has waived in
writing his right to appeal, or has applied for probation. Indeed, the belated
move on the part of the prosecution to have the information amended defies
procedural rules, the decision having attained finality after the accused
applied for probation and the fact that amendment is no longer allowed at
that stage.
attach is when the trial court acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting
to lack or excess of jurisdiction, such as where the prosecution was denied
the opportunity to present its case or where the trial was a sham.—
In Sanvicente v. People, this Court held that given the far-reaching scope of
an accused’s right against double jeopardy, even an appeal based on an
alleged misappreciation of evidence will not lie. The only instance when
double jeopardy will not attach is when the trial court acted with grave abuse
of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, such as where the
prosecution was denied the opportunity to present its case or where the trial
was a sham. Respondent People of the Philippines argues,
362
362 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Lasoy vs. Zenarosa
citing the case of Galman v. Sandiganbayan that the trial was a sham.
We do not agree with the respondent as the trial in the Galman case was
considered a mock trial owing to the act of a then authoritarian president who
ordered the therein respondents Sandiganbayan and Tanodbayan to rig the
trial and who closely monitored the entire proceedings to assure a
predetermined final outcome of acquittal and total absolution of the
respondents-accused therein of all the charges.
Same;  Same; Same;  It is too late in the day for the prosecution to ask
for the amendment of the information and seek to try again accused for the
same offense without violating their rights guaranteed under the Constitution.
—The Constitution is very explicit. Article III, Section 21, mandates that no
person shall be twice put in jeopardy of punishment for the same offense. In
this case, it bears repeating that the accused had been arraigned and
convicted. In fact, they were already in the stage where they were applying
for probation. It is too late in the day for the prosecution to ask for the
amendment of the information and seek to try again accused for the same
offense without violating their rights guaranteed under the Constitution.
Same;  Same; Dangerous Drugs;  Jurisdictions; All drug-related cases
regardless of the quantity involved and the penalty imposable pursuant to
R.A. No. 7659 and the provisions of R.A. No. 7691 still fall within the
exclusive original jurisdiction of Regional Trial Courts in view of Section 39 of
R.A. 6425 (The Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972).—. . . [A]ll drug-related cases,
regardless of the quantity involved and the penalty imposable pursuant to
R.A. No. 7659, as applied/interpreted in People vs. Simon (G.R. No. 93028,
29 July 1994, 234 SCRA 555), and of the provisions of R.A. No. 7691
expanding the jurisdiction of the Metropolitan Trial Courts and Municipal
Circuit Trial Courts, still fall within the exclusive original jurisdiction of
Regional Trial Courts, in view of Section 39 of R.A. No. 6425 (the Dangerous
Drugs Act of 1972). R.A. No. 7659 and R.A. No. 7691 have neither amended
nor modified this Section.
PETITION for review on certiorari of a decision of the Court of Appeals.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
Page 1 of 7
 363
VOL. 455, APRIL 12, 2005 363
Lasoy vs. Zenarosa
     Public Attorney’s Office for petitioners.
     The Solicitor General for the People.
CHICO-NAZARIO, J.:
After an information has been filed and the accused had been arraigned,
pleaded guilty and were convicted and after they had applied for probation,
may the information be amended and the accused arraigned anew on the
ground that the information was allegedly altered/tampered with?
In an Information filed by Assistant City Prosecutor Evelyn
Dimaculangan-Querijero dated 03 July 1996, 1accused Marcelo Lasoy and
Felix Banisa were charged as follows:
That on or about the 2nd day of July, 1996, in Quezon City, Philippines, the
above-named accused, conspiring together, confederating with and mutually
helping each other, not having been authorized by law to sell, dispense,
deliver, transport or distribute any prohibited drug, did, then and there,
willfully, unlawfully sell or offer for sale a total of 42.410 grams of dried
marijuana fruiting tops, a prohibited drug, in violation of said law.
The case docketed as Criminal Case No. 96-66788 was assigned and raffled
to Branch 103 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City, presided by
Judge Jaime N. Salazar, Jr.
Upon arraignment, both accused pleaded guilty and were sentenced on
16 July 1996 in this wise:2
On arraignment accused MARCELO LASOY and FELIX BANISA with the
assistance of [their] counsel Atty. Diosdado Savellano entered a plea of
GUILTY to the crime charged against them in the information.
ACCORDINGLY, the court hereby find[s] accused MARCELO LASOY
and FELIX BANISA, GUILTY of Violation of Section 4,
_______________
1
 Records, p. 41.
2
 Records, p. 45.
364
364 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Lasoy vs. Zenarosa
Republic Act 6425 and they are hereby sentenced to suffer a jail term of SIX
(6) MONTHS and ONE (1) DAY and the period during which said accused
are under detention is hereby deducted pursuant to the provisions of
Republic Act 5127.
The evidence in this case which is the 42.410 grams of dried marijuana
fruiting tops is hereby ordered confiscated in favor of the government. The
Property Custodian is ordered to turn over said evidences to the Dangerous
Drugs Board for proper disposition.
On the same date, both accused applied for probation under Presidential
Decree No. 968, as amended.3
On 28 August 1996, plaintiff People of the Philippines, thru Assistant City
Prosecutor Ma. Aurora Escasa-Ramos, filed two separate motions, first, to
admit amended Information,4 and second, to set aside the arraignment of the
accused, as well as the decision of the trial court dated 16 July 1996. 5 In
plaintiff’s motion to admit amended information, it alleged:
1. 1.That for some unknown reason both accused herein were charged
of (sic) Violation of Sec. 4, Art. II, R.P. 6425.
“That on or about the 2nd day of July, 1996, in Quezon City, Philippines, the
above-named accused, conspiring together, confederating with and mutually
helping each other, not having been authorized by law to sell, dispense,
deliver, transport or distribute any prohibited drug, did, then and there,
willfully, unlawfully sell, or offer for sale a total of 42.410 grams of dried
marijuana fruiting tops, a prohibited drug, in violation of said law.
When in truth and in fact the said accused should be charged for
transportation and delivery, with intent to sell and to gain, of Forty-Five (45)
pieces of dried marijuana fruiting tops weighing 42.410 kilos from La
Trinidad to Metro Manila.
_______________
3
 Establishing A Probation System, Appropriating Funds Therefore And
For Other Purposes.
4
 Rollo, p. 48.
5
 Rollo, pp. 53-54.
365
VOL. 455, APRIL 12, 2005 365
Lasoy vs. Zenarosa
1. 2.That it is imperative to file an amended information in order to
make it conformable to the evidence on hand.
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing it is most respectfully prayed that the
herewith attached Amended Information against both accused be admitted
and subsequently set for arraignment and trial.”6 (Emphasis supplied)
Resolving the motions, the trial court, in its Order dated 03 September
1996,7 held:
The Motion to Admit Amended Information is hereby DENIED, as this court
has already decided this case on the basis that the accused was arrested in
possession of 42.410 grams of marijuana and it is too late at this stage to
amend the information.
Another Order8 of the same date issued by the trial court resolved the second
motion in the following manner:
The Motion to Set Aside the Arraignment of the Accused as well as the
Decision dated July 16, 1996, filed by the Public Prosecutor is hereby
GRANTED, it appearing from the published resolution of the Supreme Court
dated October 18, 1995, in G.R. No. 119131 Inaki Gulhoran and Galo
Stephen Bobares vs. Hon. FRANCISCO H. ESCANO, JR. in his capacity as
Presiding Judge of Regional Trial Court, Leyte Branch 12, Ormoc City which
was dismissed by this court on August 20, 1996, the jurisdiction over drug of
small quantity as in the case at bar should be tried by the Metropolitan Trial
Page 2 of 7
 18
Court, although under the statute of R.A. 7659 which took effect on  Records, p. 159.
December 31, 1993 the penalty for possession or use of prohibited or 367
regulated drugs is from prision [correccional] to reclusion temporal which VOL. 455, APRIL 12, 2005 367
indeterminate penalty and under the rule on jurisdiction the court which has Lasoy vs. Zenarosa
jurisdiction over a criminal case is dependent on the maximum penalty dated 16 April 1997.19 Hence, the instant Petition for Certiorari with prayer for
attached by the statute to the crime. injunction and temporary restraining order20 based on the following grounds:21
The amended Information reads: 1. A)WITH DUE RESPECT, THE HONORABLE RESPONDENT
_______________ COURT ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THERE IS NO VALID
6
 Records, pp. 48-49. INFORMATION AND, THEREFORE, THE ACCUSED CANNOT
7
 Records, p. 52. CLAIM THE RIGHT AGAINST DOUBLE JEOPARDY; and
8
 Records, p. 55. 2. B)WITH DUE RESPECT, THE HONORABLE COURT ERRED IN
366 FAILING TO RECOGNIZE THAT THE RTC, BRANCH 103, HAD
366 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED JURISDICTION OVER THE CASE, DOCKETED AS CRIMINAL
Lasoy vs. Zenarosa CASE NO. Q-96-66799.22
“That on or about the 2nd day of July, 1996, in Quezon City, Philippines, the In this Court’s resolution dated 23 July 1997, 23 respondents were required to
above-named accused, conspiring together, confederating with and mutually comment on the Petition. They submitted their Comment on 18 November
helping each other, not having been authorized by law to sell, dispense, 1998.24 Accused filed their Reply25 on 02 March 2000. In compliance with the
deliver, transport or distribute any prohibited drug, did, then and there, Court’s resolution dated 29 March 2000, 26 accused and respondents
willfully unlawfully sell or offer for sale a total of 42.410 kilos of dried submitted their memoranda, respectively, on 26 May 2000 27and 26 July
marijuana fruiting tops, a prohibited drug, in violation of said law.” 9 2000.28
This second information was assigned to Branch 76 of the RTC of Quezon To invoke the defense of double jeopardy, the following requisites must
City presided by Judge Monina A. Zenarosa, 10 docketed as Criminal Case be present: (1) a valid complaint or information; (2) the court has jurisdiction
No. Q-96-67572. to try the case; (3) the accused has pleaded to the charge; and (4) he has
Both accused filed a Motion to Quash 11 which was opposed12 by the been convicted or acquitted or the case against him dismissed or otherwise
People in its Comment/Opposition filed before the trial court. Subsequently, terminated without his express consent.29
while the motion to quash before the RTC was as yet unresolved, both _______________
accused filed before the Court of Appeals a Petition for Certiorari13which they 19
 Records, p. 163.
later moved to withdraw “to pave the way for Branch 76 of the RTC of 20
 Rollo, pp. 4-18.
Quezon City to act judiciously on their motion to quash.’’ 14 The Court of 21
 Rollo, p. 10.
Appeals in its Resolution dated 15 November 1996 15 noted the motion and 22
 Rollo, p. 10.
considered the petition withdrawn. 23
 Rollo, p. 61.
In its now assailed resolution dated 14 February 1997, 16the trial court 24
 Rollo, pp. 87-102.
denied accused’s motion to quash, and scheduled the arraignment of the 25
 Rollo, pp. 131-146.
accused under the amended information. Accused’s Motion for 26
 Rollo, pp. 148-149.
Reconsideration,17 duly opposed by the prosecution, 18 was denied by the trial 27
 Rollo, pp. 163-189.
court in its Order 28
 Rollo, pp. 197-212.
_______________ 29
 Section 7, Rule 117 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure, as
9
 Records, p. 50. amended; Reynaldo Dimayacyac v. Court of Appeals, G.R.
10
 Now Associate Justice of the Court of Appeals. 368
11
 Rollo, pp. 26-39. 368 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
12
 Records, pp. 98-107. Lasoy vs. Zenarosa
13
 CA-G.R. SP No. 41932 raffled to Justice Hector L. Hofileña. The issues boil down to whether or not the first information is valid and
14
 Records, pp. 117-119. whether or not the RTC, Branch 103, where the first information was filed
15
 Rollo, p. 129. and under which Criminal Case No. Q-96-66788 was tried, had jurisdiction to
16
 Records, pp. 137-142. try the case.
17
 Records, pp. 152-158.
Page 3 of 7
 On the issue of validity of the information, accused and respondents
submitted opposing views—accused insisting on its validity, whereas
respondents asserted that the accused were arraigned under an invalid
information. Alleging that there being an alteration on the first information,
hence it failed to reflect the true quantity of drugs caught in possession of the
accused, the prosecution insisted that the first information under which
accused were arraigned is invalid.
In accord with the view of the prosecution, the trial court denied the
accused’s motion to quash, stating:30
. . . [I]n the instant case, it must be recalled that the earlier information filed
against the accused appeared to be sufficient in form. It was discovered,
however, that an alteration was made as to the weight of the marijuana
fruiting tops which was placed at only 42.410 grams when the correct amount
should have been in kilos. This fraudulent alteration necessarily vitiated the
integrity of the proceedings such that despite the plea of guilt made by the
accused it would not bar a subsequent prosecution for the correct offense.
Generally speaking to entitle accused to the plea of former jeopardy, the
prior proceedings must have been valid, and the lack of any fundamental
requisite which would render void the judgment would also make ineffective
a plea of jeopardy based on such proceedings.
Fraudulent or collusive prosecution. A verdict of acquittal procured by
accused by fraud and collusion is a nullity and does not put him in jeopardy;
and consequently it is no bar to a second trial for the same offense.
_______________
No. 136264, 28 May 2004, 430 SCRA 121 citing People v. Tac-an, G.R.
No. 148000, 27 February 2003, 398 SCRA 373, 380; Navallo v.
Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 97214, 18 July 1994, 234 SCRA 175, cited
in Potot v. People, G.R. No. 143547, 26 June 2002, 383 SCRA 449.
30
 RTC Order, pp. 4-5; Rollo, pp. 22-23.
369
VOL. 455, APRIL 12, 2005 369
Lasoy vs. Zenarosa
Similarly, a conviction of a criminal offense procured fraudulently or by
collusion of the offender, for the purpose of protecting himself from further
prosecution and adequate punishment, is no bar to a subsequent
prosecution for the same offense, either on the ground that the conviction is
void because of the fraud practiced, or that the state is not in any sense a
party to it and therefore not bound by it. (22 Corpus Juris Secundum, pp.
244-245)
It is impossible to believe that the accused were not aware of the deceitful
maneuvering which led to the erasure of the true weight of the marijuana
fruiting tops as alleged in the information.
They cannot pretend not to know the exact amount of prohibited stuff for
which they were charged before the information was tampered with.
They could not feign innocence when they participated in that charade
when they pleaded guilty upon arraignment.
Consequently, their plea to the lesser offense considering the decreased
weight in the now altered information which merited a much lighter penalty
was irregularly obtained. Hence, they cannot be considered as put in
jeopardy by the proceedings in court which was tainted with fraud.
The accused should not be allowed to make a mockery of justice or to
trifle with the courts by participating in a grand deception of pleading guilty to
a lesser offense knowing that they participated/acquiesced to such tampering
and then tell the court that they would be placed in jeopardy for the second
time.
We do not agree with the trial court.
FIRST, it cannot be denied that the request for appropriate inquest
proceedings dated 03 July 1996 addressed to the City Prosecutor of Quezon
City and received by Prosecutor Querijero, stated that the accused were
apprehended “for conspiring, confederating and mutually helping with each
other in facilitating and effecting the transportation and delivery . . . of forty-
five pieces of dried marijuana leaves (already in bricks) and weighing
approximately forty-five kilos.’’31
_______________
31
 Records, pp. 5-6.
370
370 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Lasoy vs. Zenarosa
In the joint affidavit of the poseur-buyer, PO3 Ernesto Jimenez Viray, Jr., and
arresting officer SPO1 Inadio U. Ibay, Jr., it is stated that the accused were
caught with approximately 45 kilos of dried marijuana fruiting tops. 32For some
unknown reasons, however, the Information filed against the accused
reflected a much lesser quantity, i.e., 42.410 grams.
The question is whether this is sufficient to consider the first Information
under which the accused were arraigned invalid.
Pertinent provisions of the Rules of Court under Rule 110 are hereunder
quoted:
Section 4. Information defined.—An information is an accusation in writing
charging a person with an offense subscribed by the fiscal and filed with the
court.
In Alvizo v. Sandiganbayan,33 this Court citing People v. Marquez affirmed:34
It should be observed that section 3 of Rule 110 defines an information as
nothing more than “an accusation in writing charging a person with an
offense subscribed by the fiscal and filed with the court.”
An information is valid as long as it distinctly states the statutory designation
of the offense and the acts or omissions constitutive thereof. 35
In other words, if the offense is stated in such a way that a person of
ordinary intelligence may immediately know what is meant, and the court can
decide the matter according to law, the inevitable conclusion is that the
information is valid. It is not necessary to follow the language of the statute in
the
_______________
Page 4 of 7
 32
 Records, pp. 7-8.
33
 G.R. No. 101689, 17 March 1993, 220 SCRA 55.
34
 G.R. No. L-23654, 28 March 1969, 27 SCRA 808.
35
 People v. Alba, G.R. Nos. 131858-59, 14 April 1999, 305 SCRA 811.
371
VOL. 455, APRIL 12, 2005 371
Lasoy vs. Zenarosa
information. The information will be sufficient if it describes the crime defined
by law.36
Applying the foregoing, the inescapable conclusion is that the first
information is valid inasmuch as it sufficiently alleges the manner by which
the crime was committed. Verily the purpose of the law, that is, to apprise the
accused of the nature of the charge against them, is reasonably complied
with.
Furthermore, the first information, applying Rule 110, 37Section 6, shows
on its face that it is valid.
Section 6. Sufficiency of complaint or information.—A complaint or
information is sufficient if it states the name of the accused; the designation
of the offense by the statute; the acts or omissions complained of as
constituting the offense; the name of the offended party; the approximate
time of the commission of the offense, and the place wherein the offense was
committed.
SECOND, and with respect specifically to the trial court’s point of view that
the accused cannot claim their right against double jeopardy because they
“participated/acquiesced to the tampering,” we hold that while this may not
be far-fetched, there is actually no hard evidence thereof. 38 Worse, we
cannot overlook the fact that accused were arraigned, entered a plea of guilty
and convicted under the first information. Granting that alteration/tampering
took place and the accused had a hand in it, this does not justify the setting
aside of the deci-
_______________
36
 Flores v. Layosa, G.R. No. 154714, 12 August 2004, 436 SCRA 337.
37
 Rules of Court.
38
 In Director,  PNP Narcotics Command v. Judge Salazar (A.M. No. 96-9-
332-RTC, 15 August 2001, 363 SCRA 8), a complaint for gross ignorance of
the law and gross inefficiency was filed against Judge Salazar relative to the
tampering/alteration of the information in Crim. Case No. 96-66788.
However, while the court found that there was indeed a tampering/alteration,
the accused were not at all implicated or faulted for the act.
372
372 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Lasoy vs. Zenarosa
sion dated 16 July 1996. The alleged tampering/alteration allegedly
participated in by the accused may well be the subject of another inquiry.
In Philippine Rabbit Bus Lines v. People,39 the Court affirming the finality
of a decision in a criminal case, citing Section 7, Rule 120 of the 2000 Rules
on Criminal Procedure, stated:
A judgment of conviction may, upon motion of the accused, be modified or
set aside before it becomes final or before appeal is perfected. Except where
the death penalty is imposed a judgment [of conviction] becomes final after
the lapse of the period for perfecting an appeal, or when the sentence has
been partially or totally satisfied or served, or when the accused has waived
in writing his right to appeal, or has applied for probation.
Indeed, the belated move on the part of the prosecution to have the
information amended defies procedural rules, the decision having attained
finality after the accused applied for probation and the fact that amendment is
no longer allowed at that stage.
Rule 110 of the Rules on Criminal Procedure is emphatic:
Sec. 14. Amendment.—The information or complaint may be amended, in
substance or form, without leave of court, at any time before the accused
pleads; and thereafter and during the trial as to all matters of form, by leave
and at the discretion of the court, when the same can be done without
prejudice to the rights of the accused.
If it appears at any time before judgment that a mistake has been made in
charging the proper offense, the court shall dismiss the original complaint or
information upon the filing of a new one charging the proper offense in
accordance with Rule 119, Section 11, provided the accused would not be
placed thereby in double jeopardy, and may also require the witnesses to
give bail for their appearance at the trial.
_______________
39
 G.R. No. 147703, 14 April 2004, 427 SCRA 456, 467.
373
VOL. 455, APRIL 12, 2005 373
Lasoy vs. Zenarosa
In Sanvicente v. People,40 this Court held that given the far-reaching scope of
an accused’s right against double jeopardy, even an appeal based on an
alleged misappreciation of evidence will not lie. The only instance when
double jeopardy will not attach is when the trial court acted with grave abuse
of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, such as where the
prosecution was denied the opportunity to present its case or where the trial
was a sham. Respondent People of the Philippines argues, citing the case
of Galman v. Sandiganbayan41 that the trial was a sham. We do not agree
with the respondent as the trial in the Galman case was considered a mock
trial owing to the act of a then authoritarian president who ordered the therein
respondents Sandiganba-yan and Tanodbayan to rig the trial and who
closely monitored the entire proceedings to assure a predetermined final
outcome of acquittal and total absolution of the respondents-accused therein
of all the charges.42
The Constitution is very explicit. Article III, Section 21, mandates that no
person shall be twice put in jeopardy of punishment for the same offense. In
Page 5 of 7

this case, it bears repeating that the accused had been arraigned and
convicted. In fact, they were already in the stage where they were applying
for probation. It is too late in the day for the prosecution to ask for the
amendment of the information and seek to try again accused for the same
offense without violating their rights guaranteed under the Constitution.
There is, therefore, no question that the amendment of an information by
motion of the prosecution and at the time when the accused had already
been convicted is contrary to procedural rules and violative of the rights of
the accused.
_______________
40
 G.R. No. 132081, 26 November 2002, 392 SCRA 610.
41
 G.R. No. L-72670, 12 September 1986, 144 SCRA 43.
42
 Metropolitan Bank and Trust Company v. Veridiano II, G.R. No.
118251, 29 June 2001, 360 SCRA 359.
374
374 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Lasoy vs. Zenarosa
FINALLY, on the issue of jurisdiction, the case of Gulhoran and Bobares v.
Escano, Jr.,43 upon which both trial courts justified their claim of jurisdiction,
was actually based on this Court’s resolution dated 18 October 1995 where
this Court held:
The criminal jurisdiction of the Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial
Courts, and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts under Section 32 (2) of B.P. 129,
as amended by Rep. Act 7691 has been increased to cover offenses
punishable with imprisonment not exceeding six (6) years irrespective of the
amount of the fine (Administrative Cir. No. 09-94, June 14, 1994). It appears
that the imposable penalties applicable to the subject cases are within the
range of prision correccional, a penalty not exceeding six years, thus falling
within the exclusive original jurisdiction of the MTC. It follows that the RTC
has no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the charges against petitioners.
If we apply the resolution of this Court quoted above, it would seem that the
Metropolitan Trial Court has jurisdiction over the case under the first
Information. Following that argument, the decision dated 16 July 1996 of the
RTC Branch 103 was rendered without jurisdiction, thus, accused may not
invoke the right against double jeopardy.
Nonetheless, we cannot uphold this view owing to the fact that a later
resolution superseding the resolution cited by the trial courts, specifically
Administrative Order No. 51-96 dated 03 May 1996, vests the RTC with
jurisdiction to try Criminal Case No. Q-96-67572. The resolution provides:
RE: SPECIAL COURTS FOR KIDNAPPING, ROBBERY, DANGEROUS
DRUGS, CARNAPPING AND OTHER HEINOUS CRIMES UNDER R.A. NO.
7659
Pursuant to Sec. 23 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, in the interest of speedy
and efficient administration of justice and subject to the guidelines hereinafter
set forth, the following Regional Trial
_______________
43
 G.R. No. L-119135, 18 October 1995.
375
VOL. 455, APRIL 12, 2005 375
Lasoy vs. Zenarosa
Court branches are hereby designated to exclusively try and decide cases of
KIDNAPPING FOR RANSOM, ROBBERY IN BAND, ROBBERY
COMMITTED AGAINST A BANKING OR FINANCIAL INSTITUTION,
VIOLATION OF THE DANGEROUS DRUGS ACT OF 1972, AS AMENDED,
AND VIOLATION OF THE ANTI-CARNAPPING ACT OF 1972, AS
AMENDED, AND OTHER HEINOUS CRIMES defined and penalized under
Rep. Act No. 7659, committed within their respective territorial jurisdictions:
...
11. Branch 103, Quezon City, presided over by RTC JUDGE JAIME N.
SALAZAR, JR.
Subsequently, A.M. No. 96-8-282-RTC dated 27 August 1996, Re:
Clarification on the applicability of Supreme Court Administrative Order No.
51-96 in relation to Section 20 of R.A. No. 6425, as amended, declared:
. . . [T]he Court Resolved to AMEND the prefatory paragraph in
Administrative Order No. 5-96, to read:
Pursuant to Section 23 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129 in the interest of speedy
administration of justice and subject to the guidelines hereinafter set forth,
the following Regional Trial Court branches are hereby designated to
exclusively try and decide cases of KIDNAPPING AND/OR KIDNAPPING
FOR RANSOM, ROBBERY IN BAND, ROBBERY COMMITTED AGAINST A
BANKING OR FINANCIAL INSTITUTION, VIOLATION OF THE
DANGEROUS DRUGS ACT OF 1972, AS AMENDED, regardless of the
quantity of the drugs involved.
This issue is further settled by the concurring opinion of Chief Justice Hilario
G. Davide, Jr., in People v. Velasco:44
. . . [A]ll drug-related cases, regardless of the quantity involved and the
penalty imposable pursuant to R.A. No. 7659, as applied/interpreted
in People vs. Simon (G.R. No. 93028, 29 July 1994, 234 SCRA 555), and of
the provisions of R.A. No. 7691 expanding the
_______________
44
 G.R. No. 110592, 23 January 1996, 252 SCRA 135, 149.
376
376 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Lasoy vs. Zenarosa
jurisdiction of the Metropolitan Trial Courts and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts,
still fall within the exclusive original jurisdiction of Regional Trial Courts, in
view of Section 39 of R.A. No. 6425 (the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972). R.A.
No. 7659 and R.A. No. 7691 have neither amended nor modified this
Section.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant petition is Granted. The
Orders dated 14 February 1997 and 16 April 1997 issued by the Regional
Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 76, are set aside. Criminal Case No. Q-
Page 6 of 7
96-67572 is ordered Dismissed. Accused Marcelo Lasoy and Felix
Banisa are forthwith ordered released from detention 45unless there may be
valid reasons for their further detention.
SO ORDERED.
     Puno (Chairman),  Austria-Martinez, Callejo, Sr.and Tinga,
JJ., concur.
Petition granted, orders dated February 14, 1997 and April 16, 1997 of
RTC of Quezon City, Branch 76 set aside. Criminal Case No. Q-96-67572
dismissed.

Page 7 of 7