CASE TITLE Villa Gomez vs. People (G.R. No.
216824, 10 November 2020)
DATE 10 November 2020
PONENCIA J. GESMUNDO
FACTS:
Anti-Illegal Drugs Special Operations Task Group of Makati City arrested the petitioner. A
complaint was filed against the petitioner for corruption of public officials. A Resolution was
issued by the OCP of Makati City finding probable cause that the petitioner may have offered
P10,000.00 to two police officers in exchange for the release of her companion.
The case was brought to the RTC, but was dismissed due to the deficiency in the Information
filed by the prosecutor. According to the RTC the Information filed was signed only by the ACP
and contains no signature or any indication of approval from the City Prosecutor. The court
ruled that ACP’s lack of authority to file the information is a “jurisdictional defect that cannot
be cured”.
The prosecution filed a petition for certiorari with the CA seeking to annul the RTC’s
decision.
The CA granted the petition for certiorari.
The petitioner challenged the decision of the SC through a Petition for Review on
certiorari.
PETITIONER’S ARGUMENT/S:
The RTC was correct in ordering the dismissal of the criminal case due to the absence of
authority on the part of the handling prosecutor who signed the Information.
A criminal Information which is void for lack of authority cannot be cured by an
amendment; for such authority is a jurisdictional requirement.
RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENT/S:
The RTC acted with grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the case for lack of authority
because the Resolution recommending for the attached Information “to be approved
for filing” bore the signature of the City Prosecutor.
ISSUES: Whether the CA found grave abuse of discretion on the part of the RTC for dismissing
the case on the ground of absence of jurisdiction relative to the failure of the prosecutor to
secure a prior written authority or stamped approval from the City Prosecutor to file the same
pleading and conduct the prosecution against the accused. (YES)
COURT RULING:
Noncompliance with Sec. 4 of Rule 112 on the duty of a handling prosecutor to secure a "prior
written authority or approval" from the provincial, city or chief state prosecutor merely affects
the "standing" of such officer "to appear for the Government of the Philippines" as
contemplated in Sec. 33 of Rule 138.
Petitioner-accused was arrested in flagrante delicto and underwent an inquest proceeding.
Accordingly, there is a need to refer to Sec. 6 of Rule 112 on inquests revealing an exception to
the requirement of securing prior written authority or approval from the city or provincial
prosecutor
Moreover, the same rule uses the phrase "may be filed by a prosecutor" implies that any
available prosecutor conducting the inquest may file an Information with the trial court.
An Information filed by a handling prosecutor with no prior approval or authority from the
provincial, city or chief state prosecutor will be rendered as merely quashable. In other words,
the lack of authority on the part of the handling prosecutor may either result in a valid filing of
an Information if not objected to by the accused or subject the former to a possible criminal or
administrative liability-but it does not prevent the trial court from acquiring jurisdiction over
the subject matter or over the person of the accused.
DISPOSITIVE PORTION:
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing premises, the Court DENIES the Petition for Review on
Certiorari filed by Gina A. Villa Gomez and AFFIRMS the October 9, 2014 Decision of the Court
of Appeals, Seventh Division in CA-G.R. SP No. 130290 for absence of any reversible error.
Moreover, the Regional Trial Court of Makati City, Branch 57 is hereby ORDERED to RESUME its
proceedings in Criminal Case No. 10-1829 with utmost dispatch.
DOCTRINE/S:
Relatedly, the Court in Corpuz v. Sandiganbayan 125 even had the occasion to point out that
"[t]he State should not be prejudiced and deprived of its right to prosecute the cases simply
because of the ineptitude or nonchalance of the Ombudsman/Special Prosecutor." This
doctrine also applies with equal force to cases where a city or provincial prosecutor fails to sign
the Information or duly delegate the signing and filing of the same pleading with the
competent court to the handling prosecutor.
