People v Puno; G.R. Nos. 61864-69; 08 May 1992; 208 SCRA 550

FACTS:
The City Fiscal moved for the withdrawal of the six informations it filed with the City Court after filing the same with the Court of First Instance in compliance with a directive of the Ministry of Justice. The City Court subsequently issued an order dismissing one of the cases for lack of jurisdiction and all six cases before the CFI were consolidated for trial.

ISSUE(S):
Whether or not respondent-accused was placed in double jeopardy.

RULING:
NO. Since the first proceeding was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction and the State was not afforded the right to present its own evidence to substantiate the allegations in the information, there is no second jeopardy to speak of. The City Court’s order of dismissal cannot be considered as a judgment of acquittal since the said court has no jurisdiction to try the case.

Petition is GRANTED and the assailed orders are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The cases are REMANDED to the appropriate Regional Trial Court.

Tags: , ,

Category: Legal Chyme

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *