Scribd
Upload
114 views2 pages

Section 11. The Provincial Fiscal or The City Fiscal Shall

Renato Cudia was arrested in June 1989 in Mabalacat, Pampanga for illegal possession of firearms. He was brought to Angeles City where the city prosecutor filed an information against him. However, the offense was actually committed in Mabalacat, not Angeles City. A second information was filed by the provincial prosecutor of Pampanga. Renato argued this violated his right against double jeopardy. The Court of Appeals dismissed this, finding the city prosecutor did not have the authority to file the first information as the offense was committed outside of Angeles City. The Supreme Court affirmed, stating that under Presidential Decree 1275 and the Administrative Code, it is the provincial prosecutor, not city prosecutor,

Uploaded by

Anonymous mv3Y0Kg
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
114 views2 pages

Section 11. The Provincial Fiscal or The City Fiscal Shall

Renato Cudia was arrested in June 1989 in Mabalacat, Pampanga for illegal possession of firearms. He was brought to Angeles City where the city prosecutor filed an information against him. However, the offense was actually committed in Mabalacat, not Angeles City. A second information was filed by the provincial prosecutor of Pampanga. Renato argued this violated his right against double jeopardy. The Court of Appeals dismissed this, finding the city prosecutor did not have the authority to file the first information as the offense was committed outside of Angeles City. The Supreme Court affirmed, stating that under Presidential Decree 1275 and the Administrative Code, it is the provincial prosecutor, not city prosecutor,

Uploaded by

Anonymous mv3Y0Kg
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

CHIN

Cudia vs CA GR. NO. 110315


Facts: Renato Cudia was arreston on June 28, 1989 in Malacat, Pampanga for the
crime of illegal possession of firearms and ammunition. He was bought to sto.
Domingo, Angeles city which a preliminary investigation was conducted and as a
result the city prosecutor filed information against him.
The case against him was raffled to branch 60 of the regional trial court of
Angeles city. Upon arraignment the court called the attention of the parties and
contrary to the information, Renato 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.
However, the provincial prosecutor of Pampanga filed an information charging
Renato Cudia with the same crime and it was likewise assigned to branch 56 of the
Angeles City RTC which resulted into two information filed with the same crime. This
prompted the City prosecutor to file a motion to dismiss/withdraw the information
which the trial court granted.
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 opposition would violate
his right not to be put twice in jeopardy of punishment for the same offense.
The trial court denied the motion to quash; hence, petitioner raised the issue
to the court of appeals. The appellate court, stating that there was no double
jeopardy, dismissed the same on the ground that the petition could not have been
convicted under the information as the same was detective. Petitioners motion for
reconsideration was denied. Hence, this appeal.
Issue: W/N the court of appeals erred when it found that the city prosecutor of
angeles city did not have the authority to file the first information.
Ruling: No.
It has plainly apparent that the city prosecutor of angeles city had no
authority to file the first information, the offense having been committed in the
municipality of Mabalacat, which is beyond his jurisdiction. Presidential decree no.
1275, in relation to section 9 of the Administrative code of 1987, pertinently
provides that:
Section 11. The provincial fiscal or the city fiscal shall:

(b) Investigate and/or cause to be investigated all charges of crimes, misdemeanors and
violations of all penal laws and ordinances within their respective jurisdictions 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 prosecutor 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 fie, 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 petitioners subsequent prosecution. As the first information was fatally
defective for lack of authority of the officer filing it, the instant petition must fail for failure to comply
with all the requisites necessary to invoke double jeopardy.
Thus motion for reconsideration is denied.

You might also like

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy