G.R. No. 2882: The United States v. Eduardo Montiel

FACTS
– Eduardo Montiel was first arrested and tried before the Justice of the Peace of Romblon for theft; during that proceeding he assaulted the Justice, wounding him.
– An information was thereafter filed charging Montiel with frustrated murder and “attempt against an authority while in the exercise of his duties.” Montiel demurred, the fiscal amended the information, deleting the charge of attempt, and later filed a separate complaint solely for the attempt under Article 249 of the Penal Code.
– No trial, arraignment, or presentation of evidence occurred on the amended complaint for frustrated murder; the prosecution proceeded only on the new complaint for the attempt.
– Montiel argued that his arrest and imprisonment on the original information placed him in jeopardy, invoking double jeopardy to bar conviction on the second information.

ISSUE
Whether Montiel was already in jeopardy on the first information such that the subsequent prosecution for the same offense constitutes a violation of the double‑jeopardy bar.

RULING
The Court held that jeopardy attaches only when trial “has actually begun” i.e., after arraignment and the commencement of the evidentiary stage. Because Montiel’s first case never progressed beyond the demurrer, with no arraignment or witness testimony, he was not in jeopardy. Accordingly, the plea of double jeopardy cannot be maintained. The judgment and sentence of the trial court are affirmed, with costs awarded against the appellant. The case is remanded for execution.