SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

Search for www.chanrobles.com

PLEASE CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST ➔ SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

^{DISSENTING OPINION}

DAVIDE, JR., C.J.:

I am unable to agree with the conclusion in the ponencia that reinstating the information in Criminal Case No. Q-91-17321 would expose petitioner to double jeopardy.

As shown in the summary of facts in the ponencia petitioner entered a plea of not guilty on 20 September 1994 to the information in Criminal Case No. Q-91-17321. But, the information was amended by the prosecution to indicate therein the date of the commission of the offense, to with: on or about August 1994 or subsequently thereafter.

The amended information was admitted by public respondent Judge in the order of 2 March 1995.

There is at all no showing that petitioner was re-arraigned on the amended information. On the contrary, on 5 December 1995 she filed a motion for leave to file and admit motion for reinvestigation, which the trial court granted in its order of 13 December 1995.

Not having been re-arraigned on the amended information, which validly supplanted the original information, the erroneous withdrawal of the information in Criminal Case No. Q-91-17321 and its subsequent reinstatement cannot place the petitioner in double jeopardy. Firstly, the withdrawal had no legal effect since the information was amended. Secondly, petitioner was not arraigned on the amended information. And, thirdly, petitioner is estopped on the matter since she had asked for a reinvestigation on the basis of the amended information.

I vote then to DENY this petition.