Case Digest: Lasoy v Zenarosa, GR 129472, April 12, 2005

Facts:
Lasoy and Banisa were charged of the crime of illegal sale of 42. 410 grams of marijuana. They both pleaded
guilty upon arraignment and were found guilty by the RTC Branch 103 of Quezon City in violation of Section 4
of RA 6425 and sentenced to imprisonment of 6 months and 1 day.

On the same date, both accused applied for probation under PD 968. The People of the Philippines thru Asst
ProSec Ramos filed 2 separate motions, which are to admit the amended information and to set aside the
arraignment of the accused as well as the prior decision of the case.

Asst Prosecutor motion to admit the amended information lies on the ground that the weight of the confiscated
material in the first information states 42.410 grams only where in fact it should be 42.410 kilos of dried
marijuana.

RTC eventually granted the motion to the amended information and to set aside arraignment and court decision
over the case.

Accused filed a motion to quash but it was denied by the RTC and scheduled the arraignment of the accused
under the amended information. Motion for Reconsideration filed by the accused was also denied.

The trial court maintained that the accused participated in the fraudulent alteration necessarily vitiated the
integrity of the proceedings and it is unbelievable that the accused were not aware of the tampering of the true
weight of the marijuana.

Issue:
1) Whether or not the first information was valid?
2) Whether or not there is double jeopardy?

Ruling:
1.) Yes. Section 3 of Rule 110 defines information as nothing more than an accusation in writing, charging a
person with an offense subscribed by the fiscal and filed with the court. Information is valid as long as it
distinctly states the statutory designation of the offense and the acts and omissions constitutive thereof. It will
be sufficient if it describes the crime defined by law. Further more under Sec 6 of Rule 110 there are 6 elements
of a valid information.
(1) The name of the accused (2) The designation of the offense by the statute (3) the acts or omissions
complained of as constituting the offense (4) the name of the offended party (5) the approximate time of the
commission of the offense and (6) the place wherein the offense was committed.

In the case at bar, all the elements are presents thereby the statute requirements was reasonably complied with.

2) Yes. 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.

In the case at bar and following the ruling on the first issue, given that the 1st information was valid, all the
requisites to invoke the defense of double jeopardy were all present.

With respect to the trial courts point of view that the accused cannot invoke said defense because they
have participated in the tampering of the details of the weight of the seized marijuana, the same cannot
be proven, as they have no evidence showing the alleged fraudulent act.

With respect to the issue of jurisdiction that the trial courts maintained that the accused couldnt invoke
the defense of double jeopardy was bereft of merit. Pursuant to the Section 23 of BP 129, RTC Branch
103, Quezon City was among the designated Trial Court Branches vested with the jurisdiction to try and
decide cases like the violation of Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972.

Disposition: Petition Granted. Criminal case dismissed and both accused were released from detention.