GR L 6216; (April, 1954) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-6216; April 30, 1954
The People of the Philippines, plaintiff-appellant, vs. Amando Austria, defendant-appellee.
FACTS
Amando Austria was charged in two separate informations before the Court of First Instance of Ilocos Norte: one for murder and another for illegal possession of a firearm under Republic Act No. 482. The cases were tried jointly. After the prosecution presented its evidence, the defense moved to dismiss the illegal possession case, arguing the information did not constitute an offense as it failed to allege that the firearm was “used or carried in the person of the possessor,” an essential element under the law. The court denied the motion. After trial, the court convicted Austria of homicide but dismissed the illegal possession charge because the information did not charge an offense under Republic Act No. 482. Subsequently, a new information for illegal possession was filed, this time alleging the accused carried and used the firearm to kill Alejo Austria. The defense moved to quash, pleading double jeopardy. Judge Antonio Belmonte granted the motion and dismissed the case. The fiscal appealed.
ISSUE
Is the dismissal of the first information for illegal possession of a firearm, on the ground that it did not allege facts sufficient to constitute an offense, a bar to a subsequent prosecution for the same offense under a valid information?
RULING
No. The order dismissing the second information on the ground of double jeopardy is set aside, and the case is remanded for further proceedings. The dismissal of the first information was not a bar to a new prosecution because the first information was void as it charged no offense at all under Republic Act No. 482, as it lacked the essential allegation that the firearm was used or carried on the person. Under Section 9, Rule 113, a dismissal is only a bar to another prosecution if the case was dismissed upon a valid complaint or information sufficient to sustain a conviction. An information that charges no offense is void and does not place the accused in jeopardy. The doctrine that a defective information may be cured by evidence admitted without objection does not apply where the information completely fails to charge any offense.