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.

FACTS

Petitioners Marcelo Lasoy and Felix Banisa were charged with violating Section 4 of R.A. No. 6425 (Dangerous Drugs Act) for selling 42.410 grams of marijuana. Upon arraignment before RTC Branch 103, they pleaded guilty and were convicted and sentenced accordingly. They subsequently applied for probation. The prosecution then filed motions to admit an amended information and to set aside the arraignment and decision, alleging the original information was for the wrong offense and should have charged transportation of 42.410 kilograms. The trial court denied the motion to amend but granted the motion to set aside, vacating its decision and ordering the case archived, citing jurisdictional issues over the quantity of drugs.
A new amended information was subsequently filed, charging the sale of 42.410 kilograms, and was raffled to RTC Branch 76 presided by respondent Judge. Petitioners filed a motion to quash, arguing double jeopardy. The respondent Judge denied the motion, prompting this petition for certiorari.

ISSUE

Whether the filing of the amended information and the subsequent proceedings before a different branch of the RTC constitute a violation of the petitioners’ constitutional right against double jeopardy.

RULING

Yes, double jeopardy has attached. The Supreme Court granted the petition. The legal logic is anchored on the constitutional protection against double jeopardy, which prohibits a second prosecution for the same offense after an acquittal or conviction, or an unjustified termination of the first case. Here, a valid information was filed, the court had jurisdiction, the petitioners were arraigned, they pleaded guilty, and a judgment of conviction was rendered. All these elements for double jeopardy to attach were present.
The prosecution’s attempt to amend the information from grams to kilograms after conviction and application for probation was a substantive alteration that charged a different and graver offense. This is not a mere formal amendment allowed after a plea. The original court’s order setting aside its own final judgment of conviction was void, as it had lost jurisdiction to do so once the judgment became final and the accused had applied for probation. Consequently, the filing of the new amended information in a different branch for what is effectively a new prosecution based on the same act violated the petitioners’ right against double jeopardy. The Court ordered the dismissal of the new case and the petitioners’ release.