G.R. No. 127777 , October 1, 1999
PETRONILA C. TUPAZ, petitioner, vs. HONORABLE BENEDICTO B. ULEP, Presiding Judge of RTC Quezon City, Branch 105, and PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Petronila C. Tupaz pleaded not guilty to an information in Criminal Case No. Q-91-17321 on 20 September 1994. The prosecution subsequently amended the information to specify the date of the offense as “on or about August 1994 or subsequently thereafter.” The public respondent Judge admitted this amended information in an order dated 2 March 1995. The record does not show that the petitioner was re-arraigned on this amended information. Instead, on 5 December 1995, the petitioner filed a motion for leave to file and admit a motion for reinvestigation, which the trial court granted on 13 December 1995.

ISSUE

Whether the reinstatement of the information in Criminal Case No. Q-91-17321 would expose the petitioner to double jeopardy.

RULING

No, reinstating the information would not place the petitioner in double jeopardy. First, the withdrawal of the information had no legal effect because the information had already been validly amended and supplanted the original. Second, the petitioner was never arraigned on the amended information. Third, the petitioner is estopped from raising the issue because she had requested a reinvestigation based on the amended information. Therefore, the petition should be DENIED.