Case Summary (G.R. No. 228236)
Petitioner
Gina A. Villa Gomez, charged with corruption of public officials for offering ₱10,000 to police officers to secure the release of a companion arrested for violation of the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act.
Respondent
The People of the Philippines, through the National Prosecution Service, defending the validity of the Information and the conduct of the prosecution.
Key Dates
• September 17, 2010: Petitioner’s arrest in Makati City.
• September 19, 2010: Complaint filed before the Office of the City Prosecutor (OCP).
• September 21, 2010: OCP Resolution finds probable cause and “approves” the attached Information.
• September 22, 2010: Information filed with RTC as Criminal Case No. 10-1829.
• February 13, 2013: RTC motu proprio dismisses the case for lack of prosecutor’s signature on the Information.
• April 29, 2013: RTC denies prosecution’s motion for reconsideration.
• October 9, 2014: CA grants certiorari under Rule 65, annuls RTC orders, and reinstates the Information.
• February 4, 2015: CA denies petitioner’s motion for reconsideration.
• November 10, 2020: Supreme Court renders en banc decision.
Applicable Law
• 1987 Philippine Constitution, Art. III, Sec. 1 (due process), Art. III, Sec. 21 (double jeopardy), Art. VIII, Sec. 5(5) (rule-making power).
• Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, Rule 112 (preliminary investigation) and Rule 117 (motion to quash).
• Republic Act No. 5180, Sec. 1 (prior written authority for assistant prosecutors).
Background of Proceedings
An inquest proceeding resulted in an OCP Resolution signed by City Prosecutor Aspi finding probable cause and recommending that the attached Information be approved for filing. Assistant City Prosecutor Paggao then filed the Information in RTC without the provincial/city prosecutor’s signature on its face. Trial proceeded and both sides rested.
RTC Rulings
February 13, 2013: The RTC dismissed the case motu proprio, holding that the Information lacked the City Prosecutor’s signature and that this defect was “jurisdictional” and incurable.
April 29, 2013: The RTC denied the prosecution’s motion for reconsideration, reaffirming that only the City Prosecutor could sign the Information.
CA Ruling
The Court of Appeals granted the prosecution’s Rule 65 petition for certiorari, finding that:
- The OCP Resolution bore City Prosecutor Aspi’s signature and sufficed as prior approval.
- The RTC could not quash the Information sua sponte after arraignment and submission without a motion from the accused.
It reversed the RTC orders and reinstated Criminal Case No. 10-1829.
Issues
I. Whether the CA correctly held that the RTC gravely abused its discretion in dismissing the case for alleged lack of authority of the handling prosecutor.
II. Whether the CA correctly found that the RTC exceeded jurisdiction by motu proprio quashing the Information and dismissing the case after both sides had rested.
Supreme Court Ruling – Procedural Framework
- Rule 45 appeals from CA decisions involve pure questions of law.
- Rule 65 petitions for certiorari lie to correct grave abuse of discretion by a lower court and do not violate double jeopardy when the challenged dismissal is void.
- The State, like the accused, is entitled to due process.
Supreme Court Ruling – Quashal Grounds and Waiver
• Rule 117, Sec. 3 lists nine grounds to quash an Information. Non-waivable grounds (§ 3[a], [b], [g], [i]) relate to absence of offense, lack of jurisdiction over offense, extinguished liability, and double jeopardy.
• Lack of authority of the filing officer (§ 3[d]) is not jurisdictional and may be waived if not raised before plea (Rule 117, Sec. 9).
Supreme Court Ruling – Jurisdictional Analysis
• Jurisdiction over subject matter and person derives from Constitution and statute, not from the prosecutor’s signature.
• An Information’s failure to bear a superior prosecutor’s signature does not deprive the court of authority to hear the case.
• Authority to appear and file is procedural and governed by Rule 112’s requirement of prior written approval; it does not affect trial court jurisdiction.
Supreme Court Ruling – Authority to Appear
• Rule 138 recognizes that any official designated by law to appear for the government may prosecute.
• A handling prosecutor without explicit signature by the ci
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 228236)
Facts
- On September 17, 2010, police operatives from the Anti-Illegal Drugs Special Operations Task Group of Makati City arrested Gina A. Villa Gomez.
- On September 19, 2010, a complaint for corruption of public officials under Article 212 of the Revised Penal Code (in relation to Article 211-A) was filed against her.
- The Makati City Prosecutor’s Office received the complaint for inquest.
Preliminary Investigation and Information
- On September 21, 2010, Assistant City Prosecutor Rainald C. Paggao issued a Resolution finding probable cause that petitioner offered ₱10,000 to PO2 Ronnie E. Aseboque and PO2 Renie E. Aseboque in exchange for the release of Reynaldo Morales y Cabillo @ “Anoy.”
- The Resolution:
- Certified probable cause for corruption of public officials (RPC Art. 212 in relation to Art. 211-A).
- Stated “The attached Information is recommended to be approved for filing in court. No bail.”
- Bore the signature of City Prosecutor Feliciano Aspi above the word “Approved.”
- On September 22, 2010, Assistant City Prosecutor Paggao filed an Information in RTC-Makati, Branch 57, as Criminal Case No. 10-1829, charging petitioner with the willful, unlawful, and felonious offer of ₱10,000 to three police officers to secure the release and non-prosecution of a non-bailable offense suspect.
Trial Court Proceedings
- The case proceeded to trial on the merits and was eventually declared submitted for decision.
- On February 13, 2013, Branch 57 of the RTC issued a motu proprio Order dismissing Criminal Case No. 10-1829:
- Held that the Information filed by ACP Paggao lacked the City Prosecutor’s signature or explicit approval.
- Declared that such defect was jurisdictional and could not be cured.
- On April 29, 2013, the RTC denied the Prosecution’s motion for reconsideration:
- Reiterated that ACP Paggao was never expressly authorized to sign the Information.
- Asserted that courts may address jurisdictional issues sua sponte even after submission.
Court of Appeals Ruling
- The Office of the Solicitor General filed a Rule 65 certiorari petition with the Court of Appeals.
- On October 9, 20