CRIMPRO DIGESTS G01
ATTY. ARNO V. SANIDAD
26) Heirs of Honrales vs. Honrales (629 SCRA 423, 2010)
Villarama, Jr., J.
RECIT READY:
Respondent Jonathan Honrales was charged for parricide for fatally shooting his wife. A
motion to withdraw the information of the charge of parricide was issued. While pending,
information was filed in MeTC for the case of reckless imprudence resulting to parricide. The
MeTC convicted the respondent for reckless imprudence resulting to parricide. Hence, the
petitioner heirs filed a petition for certiorari assailing the order of dismissing the parricide
case. Respondent argue that the reopening of the case would violate his right against double
jeopardy. However, the court ruled for the reopening of the case because it failed to satisfy
the requisites of double jeopardy which is that the judgment was made before a competent
court. Once jurisdiction is acquired by the court in which the Information is filed, it is there
retained. The jurisdiction is retained in RTC because it remained pending when the
information in MeTC was filed.
DOCTRINE:
Double Jeopardy exists when the following requisites are present
1. First Jeopardy attaches prior to the second
2. First Jeopardy has been validly terminated
3. Second Jeopardy is for the same offense as in the first
A first jeopardy attaches only
1. After a valid indictment
2. Before a competent court
3. After arraignment
4. When a valid plea has been entered; and
5. When the accused has been acquitted or convicted or the case dismissed or
otherwise terminated without express consent.
FACTS:
 August 2002, Jane Honrales was fatally shot by her husband Jonathan Honrales .
 Upon the recommendation through the October Resolution of Assistant Prosecutor
of Manila, Camba, an information for parricide was filed in RTC Manila
 November 2002, Judge Soriaso of RTC Manila ordered the arrest of respondent
Jonathan Honrales
 December 19, 2003, Assistant prosecutor Rebagay set aside the October Resolution
recommending the filing of information of the parricide charges. Instead, he
recommended the withdrawal of the information for parricide and filing the
information for reckless imprudence resulting in parricide. The city prosecutor
approved of the resolution.
 Rebagay filed with the RTC motion to withdraw the information for parricide
 While the motion to withdraw the information to parricide was still pending, an
information for reckless imprudence case was filed against respondent before
Metropolitan Trial Court stating that Jane Honrales was shot accidentally when the
1
TOPIC: CRIMINAL JURISDICTION
AUTHOR: RODRIGUEZ
accused after removing the bullets of the gun in a negligent manner, playfully
poked the gun to his maid, son and wife. There was a gunshot wound in the head
and neck which was the immediate cause of death
 Because the petitioner heirs wanted Honrales to be convicted of parricide, they
filed a petition to review with DOJ questioning the downgrading of the offense.
They also filed an opposition to motion to withdraw information (the one the
respondent filed in the RTC) stating that there was no final resolution yet and the
downgrading of the charges would justify the withdrawal of the information for
parricide.
 DOJ dismissed the petition for review further stating that there is a probable cause
against respondent for reckless imprudence resulting in parricide instead of the
intentional parricide charged
 Petitioners filed for a motion for reconsideration but were also denied. Hence,
Judge Soriaso of the RTC Manila issued an order on May 28, 2004 considering the
motion to withdraw the information submitted for resolution. Petitioner again filed
motion for reconsideration to DOJ but was dismissed with finality in a resolution
dated July 14, 2004
 Petitioners appealed to the office of the President. In the meantime, the
respondent was arraigned before MeTC and pleaded guilty to the charge of
reckless imprudence resulting to parricide. He was sentenced to suffer a penalty for
1 year, 7 months and 11 days to 2 years, 10 months and 20 days of prision
correccional
 Respondent filed with the RTC a motion to dismiss the parricide charges against
him citing his arraignment and conviction by MeTC as grounds for the dismissal
 Respondents moved for Jurdge Soriaros inhibition alleging bias in favor of the
prosecution because of her continued inaction on his motion to withdraw the
information. It was re-raffled to Judge Barrios
 Judge Barrios issued an order on September 26, 2005 granting the withdrawal of
the information for parricide and recalling the warrant of arrest issued against the
respondent. He ruled that the information for parricide itself was without a
supporting resolution. Hence, the dismissal was proper.
 Petitioner heirs filed a petition for certiorari assailing the orders issued by the RTC
through Judge Barrios but was dismissed. Though it found the Judge Barrios failed
to make an independent assessment of the merits of the case, the remand of the
case to RTC would serve no useful purpose. The result of reopening would violate
the respondent’s constitutional right against double jeopardy.
 Petitioner Heirs and OSG moved for reconsideration but was denied
 Petitioner Heirs argue that when respondent immediately pleaded guilty to the
charge for reckless imprudence without notice to them, such a plea cannot be
legally invoked in respondents defense of double jeopardy
 OSG argues that MeTC cannot acquire the jurisdiction of the case of parricide or
any offense necessarily included because prosecutions motion to withdraw the
information for parricide before RTC remained unacted by the court
 Respondent argues that it would violate his right against double jeopardy.
CRIMPRO DIGESTS G01 TOPIC: CRIMINAL JURISDICTION
ATTY. ARNO V. SANIDAD AUTHOR: RODRIGUEZ
o First Jeopardy has already attached because the proceedings were already
terminated since he is serving his sentence and applied for probation

ISSUE/S:
1. Whether the remand of the parricide case to the trial court will violate the
respondent’s right against double jeopardy? NO

HELD:
 RTC acted with grave abuse of discretion in granting the withdrawal of information
for parricide and recalling the warrant of arrest without making an independent
assessment of the merits of the case and evidence of record. It merely relied on the
manifestation of the public prosecutor that it is abiding the resolution of the
secretary of justice.
 The right against double jeopardy is not violated.
 [ SEE DOCTRINE]
 In this case MeTC took cognizance of the information for reckless imprudence
resulting in parricide while the criminal case for parricide was still pending before
the RTC.
 Once jurisdiction is acquired by the court in which the Information is filed, it is
there retained
 Since the offense of reckless imprudence resulting in parricide was intended in the
charge of intentional parricide pending before RTC, MeTC had no jurisdiction over
the criminal case before it.
 RTC retained the jurisdiction over the offense
 Requisite that the judgment be rendered by a court of competent jurisdiction is
absent
 Decision rendered without jurisdiction is not a decision contemplated by law and
can never be exceutory.

PETITION IS GRANTED. TRIAL COURT DIRECTED TO REINSTANTE CRIMINAL CASE FOR

APPROPRIATE PROCEEDIGN.

Relevant Provision:

Section 7, Rule 117 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, as amended provides:

SEC. 7. Former conviction or acquittal; double jeopardy. When an accused has been convicted
or acquitted, or the case against him dismissed or otherwise terminated without his express
consent by a court of competent jurisdiction, upon a valid complaint or information or other
formal charge sufficient in form and substance to sustain a conviction and after the accused
had pleaded to the charge, the conviction or acquittal of the accused or the dismissal of the
case shall be a bar to another prosecution for the offense charged, or for any attempt to
commit the same or frustration thereof, or for any offense which necessarily includes or is
necessarily included in the offense charged in the former complaint or information.