1.

As a general rule, the issue of jurisdiction may be raised at any stage of the proceedings,
even on appeal, and is not lost by waiver or by estoppel. However, it can be waived by
estoppel when the petitioner actively participated in the trial.
The exception is best characterized by the peculiar circumstances in Tijam vs. Sibonghanoy.
In applying the principle of estoppel by laches in the exceptional case of Sibonghanoy, the
Court therein considered the unfairness of raising the defense of lack of jurisdiction 15 years
after the adverse decision was made. This ruling suggests that a period of 15 years is
sufficient for laches to attach.
Once again, in Cervantes, the question of when to apply the ruling in Sibonghanoy was raised.
The Court held, in applying the said doctrine to the instant case, the petitioner is in no way
estopped by laches in assailing the jurisdiction of the RTC because no considerable period had
yet elapsed for laches to attach. In this case, more or less 8 years has elapsed.
Hence, as a general rule, jurisdiction over the subject matter in criminal proceeding cannot
be waived. In our careful analaysis, the exceptional case of Sibonghanoy can only be applied
if there is the presence of laches, held to be 15 years more or less.
2.
No. There is no double jeopardy because the first jeopardy did not attach.
Under the Rules of Court, for legal jeopardy to exist, it is enough that a defendant shall have
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, and after the defendant has appealed to the charge. (emphasis supplied)
In Cabral vs Bracamonte, the Court held that jurisdiction over the subject matter in a
criminal case cannot be conferred upon the court by the accused, by express waiver or
otherwise; and is given only by law in the manner and form prescribed by law.
When a person did not question the court's jurisdiction on his first criminal case, it did not
automatically confer jurisdiction upon the court. Even if the decision became final and
executory, such decision is void for lack of jurisdiction. Thus, since the first criminal case was
decided not by a court of competent jurisdiction, legal jeopardy did not attach. Hence, there
is no double jeopardy.