MARCELO vs.

CA (CRIM PRO_) FACTS: In a complaint-affidavit filed with the Office of the City Prosecutor of Quezon City, Jose T. Marcelo charged the petitioners with falsification of publi c documents committed by forging the signature of Jose P. Marcelo, Sr. in six vo ting trust agreements (VTA's). After conducting a preliminary investigation, Ass istant City Prosecutor Domingo Israel found "more than sufficient evidence" of t he forgery of the signature of Jose P. Marcelo, Sr., as "found and concluded by two (2) national police agencies, the NBI and PCCL," and recommended the filing of the case in court. An information for falsification of public documents was filed with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City. Petitioners filed with the Office of the City Prosecutor of Quezon City a Motion for Review seeking the deferment of the fili ng of the information and/ or the reversal of the resolution of the assistant ci ty prosecutor. The Review Committee handed down a resolution, recommending the r eversal of the resolution and the withdrawal of the information. RTC judge Bersa min agreed with the findings of the review committee, dismissed the case. Privat e complainant on the other hand, filed with the Secretary of Justice an appeal f rom the resolution of the Review Committee. The Secretary of Justice granted th e complainant's appeal, reversing the Resolution of the Review Committee, and or dering the filing of new information. A new information was filed, and was raffled to branch 101 RTC of Quezon City pr esided over by judge Santiago. The petitioners filed a motion to quash the infor mation; however, Judge Santiago denied the motion. Hence, the petitioners filed with the Court of Appeals, a special civil action for certiorari to set aside th e order of the Santiago court denying the motion to quash. They alleged therein that the "respondent Judge evaded his positive legal duty when he disregarded th e consistent rulings that once an information has already been filed in court, t he court acquires complete jurisdiction over the case and the Secretary of Justi ce may no longer interfere with the court's disposition of the case." The Court of Appeals denied the petitioners' motion to reconsider the decision; hence, th e petitioners brought the case to the Supreme court. ISSUE: Whether a pre-arraignment dismissal of a criminal case by the trial cour t bars the filing of new information for the same offense. RULING: The withdrawal of the information in Criminal Case, or even the dismissa l of the said case as decreed by the lower court (presided by judge Bersamin), d id not bar the filing of a new information as directed by the Secretary of Justi ce in his Resolution. No jeopardy had attached as a result of the earlier termin ation of Criminal Case because the petitioners therein had not been arraigned an d had, in fact, asked for its dismissal for a cause other than that which would constitute double jeopardy. On the contrary, the filing of the new information s traightened the course of criminal justice which had earlier gone awry due to th e precipitate action of the Bersamin court. Nor may it be said that the prosecut or who filed the information had no authority to do so. The Santiago court (subs equent court, where the new information was filed), therefore, correctly denied the petitioners' motion to quash the new information that was filed and the Cou rt of Appeals committed no reversible error in dismissing the said petition.