RENATO CUDIA S. CA
G.R. No. 110315 :
January 16,1998
FACTS:
Renato Cudia
was arrested for Illegal Possession of Firearms and Ammunition on June 28, 1989
in Mabalacat, Pampanga. He was taken to Sto. Domingo, Angeles City, where a
forensic investigation was conducted and an information against him was
submitted by the City Prosecutor.
The case
against him was raffled to Branch 60 of the Regional Trial Court of Angeles
City. Upon his arraignment, the court called the attention of the parties and
contrary of the information , Renatio Cudia had committed the offense in
Mabalacat and not in Angeles City. Thus the judge ordered that the case should
be assigned to a court involving crimes committed outside Angeles City
consequently it was assigned to Branch 56 of the Angeles City RTC.
The
Provincial Prosecutor of Pampanga, on the other hand, filed an information
accusing Renato Cudio with the same offence, which was also transferred to
Branch 56 of the Angeles City RTC, resulting in two information filed for the same
crime. The City Prosecutor filed a Motion to Dismiss/Withdraw the Information,
which was denied by the trial court.
Renato filed
a Motion to Quash the criminal case filed by the Provincial Prosecutor on the
ground that his continued prosecution for the offense of illegal possession of
firearms and ammunition for which he had been arraigned in the first criminal
case, and which had been dismissed despite his opposition would violate his
right not to be put twice in jeopardy of punishment for the same offense.
The motion to
quash was dismissed by the district court, but petitioner took the case to the
Court of Appeals. The appeals court dismissed the case, finding that there was
no double jeopardy and that the petition should not have been convicted under
the first knowledge because it was faulty. This appeal stems from the denial of
the petitioner's motion for reconsideration.
ISSUE:
Whether the
Court of Appeals was correct in finding that the City Prosecutor and Angeles
City lacked the right to file the initial evidence.
RULING:
No, the City
Prosecutor of Angeles City has no right to file the first evidence since the
crime was committed in the Municipality of Mabalacat, which is outside of his
jurisdiction. In relation to Section 9 of the Administrative Code of 1987,
Presidential Decree No. 1275 states that:
Sec. 11. The
provincial or the city fiscal shall:
b.)
Investigate and / or cause to investigate all charges of crimes, misdemeanors
and violations of all penal laws and ordinances within their respective
jurisdiction and have the necessary information or complaint prepared or made
against the persons accused. In the conduct of such investigations he or his
assistants shall receive the sworn statements or take oral evidence of
witnesses summoned by subpoena for the purpose.
It is thus
the Provincial of Pampanga, not the City Prosecutor, who should prepare
informations for offenses committed within Pampanga but outside of Angeles
City. An information, when required to be filed by a public prosecuting officer,
cannot be filed by another. It must be exhibited or presented by the
prosecuting attorney or someone authorized by law. If not the court does not
acquire jurisdiction.
In fine,
there must have been a valid and sufficient complaint or information in the
former prosecution. As the fiscal had no authority to file the information, the
dismissal of the first information would not be a bar to petitioner’s
subsequent prosecution. As the first information was fatally defective for lack
of authority of the officer filling it, the instant petition must fail for
failure to comply with all the requisites necessary to invoke double jeopardy.
No comments:
Post a Comment