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.

FACTS

On June 28, 1989, petitioner Renato Cudia was arrested in Mabalacat, Pampanga, for illegal possession of an unlicensed firearm. The City Prosecutor of Angeles City filed an information against him (Criminal Case No. 11542) in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Angeles City, which was raffled to Branch 60. Petitioner was arraigned and pleaded not guilty. During pre-trial, the court noted the offense was committed in Mabalacat, not Angeles City. Following an internal arrangement among judges, the case was re-raffled to Branch 56. Subsequently, the Provincial Prosecutor of Pampanga filed a separate information for the same offense (Criminal Case No. 11987), also raffled to Branch 56. The prosecutor in the first case then filed a Motion to Dismiss/Withdraw the Information, citing inadvertence in filing within the wrong jurisdiction. Petitioner opposed the motion, but the trial court granted the dismissal. Petitioner then moved to quash the second information on grounds of double jeopardy, arguing he had already been arraigned in the first case which was dismissed without his consent. The trial court denied his motion. The Court of Appeals affirmed, ruling no double jeopardy attached because the first information was invalid due to the City Prosecutor’s lack of authority to file it, as the crime occurred outside his jurisdiction in Mabalacat.

ISSUE

Whether the dismissal of the first information (Criminal Case No. 11542) bars the filing of the second information (Criminal Case No. 11987) on the ground of double jeopardy.

RULING

No, double jeopardy did not attach. For double jeopardy to apply, the first jeopardy must have attached based on a valid complaint or information filed by a competent officer. Here, the first information was fatally defective because the City Prosecutor of Angeles City had no authority to file it for an offense committed in Mabalacat, Pampanga, which is outside his jurisdiction under Presidential Decree No. 1275. Only the Provincial Prosecutor of Pampanga had that authority. Jurisdiction over the case was correctly vested in the RTC branches in Angeles City (including Branch 60) as defined by Administrative Order No. 7, but the information itself was invalid due to the prosecuting officer’s lack of authority. This infirmity is jurisdictional and cannot be waived by the accused’s failure to object or by his arraignment. Since the first information was invalid, no conviction could have been sustained upon it, and its dismissal did not constitute a valid termination that could bar a second prosecution. Therefore, petitioner’s continued prosecution under the second information filed by the proper officer does not violate the constitutional prohibition against double jeopardy.