G.R. No. 114046 October 24, 1994
Honorato Galvez and Godofredo Diego, petitioners, vs. Court of Appeals (17th Division), First Asst. Provincial Prosecutor Dennis M. Villa-Ignacio, The People of the Philippines, and PNP P/Sr. Supt. Ricardo F. De Leon, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioners, including a municipal mayor, were initially charged with homicide and two counts of frustrated homicide. They posted bail and were released. The Provincial Prosecutor moved to defer proceedings to review the charges. Subsequently, a designated Acting Provincial Prosecutor, respondent Villa-Ignacio, conducted a reinvestigation. On December 15, 1993, the prosecutor filed an ex parte motion to withdraw the original informations, which the trial court (Branch 14, Judge Villajuan) granted. On the same day, the prosecutor filed a new set of informations for murder, two counts of frustrated murder, and illegal possession of firearms. These were raffled to a different branch (Branch 10, Judge Pornillos), which ordered the petitioners’ arrest as no bail was recommended for murder.
Petitioners moved for reconsideration of the withdrawal order before Judge Villajuan and filed a motion to quash the new informations before Judge Pornillos. On January 20, 1994, Judge Villajuan granted the motion for reconsideration, reinstated the original cases, and set arraignment. However, on January 24, 1994, Judge Pornillos denied the motion to quash and arraigned petitioners on the new charges. The Court of Appeals upheld Judge Pornillos’ order, prompting this petition.

ISSUE

The primary issue is which set of informations should proceed: the original (homicide/frustrated homicide) or the subsequent set (murder/frustrated murder/illegal possession of firearms). Corollary issues involve the validity of the ex parte withdrawal of the first informations and which court acquired jurisdiction.

RULING

The Supreme Court ruled that the original informations in Criminal Cases Nos. 3642-M-93 to 3644-M-93 before Branch 14 (Judge Villajuan) must proceed. The legal logic is grounded in jurisdiction and procedural correctness. Once an information is filed in court, the court acquires jurisdiction over the case. The prosecution’s withdrawal of the information via an ex parte motion was invalid for lack of notice and hearing, violating petitioners’ right to due process. The proper remedy for the prosecution, if it believed the charges were incorrect, was to amend the information under Rule 110, Section 14, not to withdraw it and file a new one. Consequently, Judge Villajuan’s order granting the withdrawal was void. His subsequent order reinstating the original cases was correct, as his branch never lost jurisdiction. Therefore, Judge Pornillos’ branch (Branch 10) never validly acquired jurisdiction over the second set of informations, making her denial of the motion to quash and the arraignment void. The filing of the second set constituted forum-shopping. The writs of certiorari and prohibition were granted against the Court of Appeals and Judge Pornillos. The ancillary petition for habeas corpus was rendered moot as petitioners were already released on bail for the original charges.