DOUBLE JEOPARDY
MARCELO LASOY and FELIX BANISA, vs. HON. MONINA A. ZENAROSA
G.R. No. 129472. April 12, 2005
Facts:
MARCELO LASOY and FELIX BANISA, vs. HON. MONINA A. ZENAROSA
G.R. No. 129472. April 12, 2005
Facts:
On July 2, 1996 the accused were arrested fro possession and transport
of marijuana leaves (in bricks). They were charged with the violation of the
Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972, with the information containing the fact that they
were in possession of and were transporting, selling or offering to sell 42.410
grams of dried marijuana fruiting tops. The accused was then arraigned, pleaded
guilty and convicted. Subsequently they applied for probation. Thereafter the
prosecutor’s office filed two motions to admit amended information (claiming
that the marijuana recovered was 42.410 kilos, not grams) and to set aside the
arraignment of the accused; the accused then moved to quash the motion raising
the constitutional protection against double jeopardy.
Issue:
Issue:
Whether or not double jeopardy attaches.
Held:
Held:
To invoke the defense of double jeopardy, the following requisites must
be present: (1) a valid complaint or information; (2) the court has
jurisdiction to try the case; (3) the accused has pleaded to the charge; and
(4) he has been convicted or acquitted or the case against him dismissed or otherwise
terminated without his express consent.
An information is valid as long as it distinctly states the statutory designation of the offense and the acts or omissions constitutive thereof. In other words, if the offense is stated in such a way that a person of ordinary intelligence may immediately know what is meant, and the court can decide the matter according to law, the inevitable conclusion is that the information is valid. The inescapable conclusion, then, is that the first information is valid inasmuch as it sufficiently alleges the manner by which the crime was committed. Verily the purpose of the law, that is, to apprise the accused of the nature of the charge against them, is reasonably complied with.
Moreover, an administrative order of the Supreme Court designated Regional Trial Courts to exclusively try and decide cases of … violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972, as amended, regardless of the quantity of the drugs involved. (PP. vs. Velasco)
Therefore, the requisites of double jeopardy being present, the defense attaches.