7/14/2020 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.
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
central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001734d78f8e2b268e0a9003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/9
7/14/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 284

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 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

central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001734d78f8e2b268e0a9003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 2/9
7/14/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 284

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
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
2
was 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
central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001734d78f8e2b268e0a9003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 3/9
7/14/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 284

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 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, 4within 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 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

central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001734d78f8e2b268e0a9003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 4/9
7/14/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 284

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,
5
or 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:

(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 6
terminated 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

central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001734d78f8e2b268e0a9003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 5/9
7/14/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 284

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,
7
Pampanga. 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 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:
xxx xxx xxx
PAMPANGA
xxx xxx xxx
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

central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001734d78f8e2b268e0a9003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 6/9
7/14/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 284

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:

xxx xxx xxx
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 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 8be filed by a public prosecuting officer, cannot be filed
by another. It must be exhibited or presented by the prosecuting
attorney or someone9 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
10
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

__________________

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 11of 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
12
be cured 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

central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001734d78f8e2b268e0a9003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 7/9
7/14/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 284

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
13
indictment 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 14
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

____________________

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.
15
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.
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 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.

central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001734d78f8e2b268e0a9003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 8/9
7/14/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 284

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 2020 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001734d78f8e2b268e0a9003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 9/9