Defendant  Kamad  Arinso was  accused, in  the  Court of  First  Instance of  Cotabato,  of illegal possession  of a hand grenade.  When the case was  called for trial  on the merits,  on July 17, 1953, Arinso then a detention prisoner,  for failure to  file  a  bail bond with the leave of  the  court,  withdraw his previous plea of  not  guilty and entered, in lieu thereof, that of guilty.  Thereupon, applying  the provisions of section 106  of the Administrative Code for Mindanao  and Sulu, and  considering, in favor of  the defendant, the mitigating  circumstances of plea  of guilty and lack of sufficient instruction,  said court sentenced  him to imprisonment for six (6) months, with the accessory penalties provided by law, and  to pay the costs, apart from ordering  the  confiscation  of the  hand grenade  aforementioned.  The  prosecution moved  for a reconsideration  of  this  sentence,  upon  the  ground that said  section  106 should not have  been applied,  but the motion was  denied.   Hence, the  present  appeal by the Government, upon the ground  that: 

1. "The  lower court erred in  finding that at the  time of filing the motion for reconsideration by the provincial fiscal, the appellee had already commenced serving the sentence imposed, and in denying said motion on the ground that the decision has become final.  
    
2. "The lower court erred in interpreting that the motion for reconsideration filed by the  provincial fiscal was in effect a motion for new trial,  and in denying said motion allegedly because to grant it for the  purpose of raising the penalty would  constitute double jeopardy.   
    
3. "The lower court erred in considering in favor of the appellee the provisions of section 106 of the Administrative Code of Mindanao and Sulu, and in sentencing him to six (6) months of imprisonment only."

The first assignment of  error need4 not be considered, for,  even if  it  were well taken, the appeal is  devoid  of merit.  What is more,  it cannot even be entertained.

The Government maintains  that the penalty meted out to the defendant  is  too light, inasmuch  as  said  hand grenade had  been used by him to commit  the crime  of robbery in band with homicide, with which he is charged in another case.  However, under the provisions of section 106  of  said Administrative  Code,  the lower  court had' discretion to impose said penalty,  which, accordingly, cannot be assailed as erroneous, from  the legal viewpoint.

More important still, the lower court admittedly had jurisdiction to render the decision appealed from, as well as over the  subject  matter of the  case  and. over the parties.  Likewise, it is not disputed  that  the information  against the accused is  sufficient in form and in  substance, and that he had been  arraigned  and had  entered his plea prior to the rendition of said  decision.  In other words, he has already been placed in jeopardy of  punishment for the  offense charged in the lower court, and the appeal  of  the  prosecution,  with  a view  to urging an increase of his  penalty, places him twice in jeopardy  of punishment for said offense, as held  in People vs.  Ang Cho  Kio (95 Phil., 475, 50 Off. Gaz., 3563) and reiterated in People vs. Taruc (87 Phil., 927, decided  November 28, 1955).

Wherefore,  plaintiff's appeal is  hereby dismissed,  with costs de oficio.  It is so ordered.

Paras, C. J., Bengzon, Padilla, Montemayor,  Reyes, A., Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Reyes, J. B. L., and Endencia, JJ., concur.