CASE NO 2

CASE NAME Gina Villa Gomez v. People, G.R. No. 216824, November 10, 2020.
PONENTE GESMUNDO, J.
TOPIC General Provisions
DOCTRINE The handling prosecutor's authority, has no connection to the trial court's power to hear and
decide a case. Hence, Sec. 3(d), Rule 117, requiring a handling prosecutor to secure a prior
written authority or approval from the provincial, city or chief state prosecutor before filing
an Information with the courts, may be waived by the accused through silence,
acquiescence, or failure to raise such ground during arraignment or before entering a plea. If,
at all, such deficiency is merely formal and can be cured at any stage of the proceedings in a
criminal case.

All previous doctrines laid down by this Court, holding that the lack of signature and approval
of the provincial, city or chief state prosecutor on the face of the Information shall divest the
court of jurisdiction over the person of the accused and the subject matter in a criminal
action, are hereby abandoned. It is sufficient for the validity of the Information or Complaint,
as the case may be, that the Resolution of the investigating prosecutor recommending for
the filing of the same in court bears the imprimatur of the provincial, city or chief state
prosecutor whose approval is required by Sec. 1 of R.A. No. 5180185 and is adopted under
Sec. 4, Rule 112 of the Rules of Court.

(medyo mahaba)

FACTS

On September 17, 2010, police operatives from the Anti-Illegal Drugs Special Operations Task Group of
Makati City arrested the petitioner.

On September 19, 2010, a Complaint was filed against the petitioner for corruption of public officials. The
same Complaint was received for inquest by the Office of the City Prosecutor (OCP) of Makati City.

On September 21, 2010, a Resolution was issued by the OCP of Makati City finding probable cause that
the petitioner may have offered P10,000.00 to both PO2 Ronnie E. Aseboque and PO2 Renie E. Aseboque
in exchange for the release of her companion Reynaldo Morales y Cabillo @ "Anoy."

On September 22, 2010, an Information" for corruption of public officials was filed with the RTC against
the petitioner.

The RTC issued an Order, without any motion from either Gomez or the Prosecution, perfunctorily
dismissing the criminal case because ACP Paggao had no authority to prosecute the case as the
Information he filed does not contain the signature or any indication of approval from City Prosecutor
Feliciano Aspi (City Prosecutor Aspi) himself; and ACP Paggao's lack of authority to file the Information
is "a jurisdictional defect that cannot be cured." Aggrieved, the Prosecution filed a Motion for
Reconsideration which the RTC denied.

1
The CA rendered a Decision which pointed out that: (1) the records show that the OCP's September 21,
2010 Resolution was indeed signed by City Prosecutor Aspi himself;32 and (2) the RTC cannot quash an
Information and dismiss the case on its own without a corresponding motion filed by the accused,
especially if the latter had already entered a plea during a previously conducted arraignment.

ISSUE

Whether the Information be quashed on the ground of absence of jurisdiction over the person of the
accused and over the offense charged if the Information filed by the investigating prosecutor does not
bear the imprimatur because of the absence on its face of both the word "approved" and the signature of
the authorized officer such as the provincial, city or chief state prosecutor. - No

RULING

Jurisdiction in General

Judgment rendered without such power and authority is void thereby creating no rights and imposing no
duties on the parties. As a consequence, a void judgment may be attacked anytime.

Relatedly, the concept of jurisdiction has several aspects, namely: (1) jurisdiction over the subject matter;
(2) jurisdiction over the parties; (3) jurisdiction over the issues of the case; and (4) in cases involving
property, jurisdiction over the res or the thing which is the subject of the litigation.Additionally, a court
must also acquire jurisdiction over the remedy in order for it to exercise its powers validly and with
binding effect. As to the acquisition of jurisdiction in criminal cases, there are three (3) important
requisites which should be satisfied, to wit: (1) the court must have jurisdiction over the subject matter;
(2) the court must have jurisdiction over the territory where the offense was committed; and, (3) the court
must have jurisdiction over the person of the accused.

In the case at hand, the relevant aspects of jurisdiction being disputed are: (1) over the subject matter or,
in criminal cases, over the nature of the offense charged; and (2) over the parties, or in criminal cases,
over the person of the accused.

Jurisdiction Over the Subject Matter or Nature of the Offense

As applied to criminal cases, jurisdiction over a given crime is vested by law upon a particular court and
may not be conferred thereto by the parties involved in the offense. More importantly, jurisdiction over
an offense cannot be conferred to a court by the accused through an express waiver or otherwise. Here, a
trial court's jurisdiction is determined by the allegations in the Complaint or Information and not by the
result of proof.

2
Clearly, the authority of the officer in filing an Information has nothing to do with the ultimate facts
which describe the charges against the accused. The issue on whether or not the handling prosecutor
secured the necessary authority from his or her superior before filing the Information does not affect or
change the cause of the accusation or nature of the crime being attributed to the accused.

Existing jurisprudence even allows the Prosecution to amend an Information alleging facts which do not
constitute an offense just to make it line up with the nature of the accusation. In other words, existing
rules grant the Prosecution a chance to amend a fatally and substantially defective Information affecting
the cause of the accusation or the nature of the crime being imputed against the accused. As such, it is
with more reason that the handling prosecutor shall also be afforded with the chance to first secure the
necessary authority from the provincial, city or chief state prosecutor.

Absence of authority or prior approval of the handling prosecutor from the city or provincial prosecutor
cannot be considered as among the grounds for the quashal of an Information which is non-waivable.

Jurisdiction Over the Person of the Accused

Jurisdiction over the person of the accused is acquired upon his or her: (1) arrest or apprehension, with or
without a warrant; or (2) voluntary appearance or submission to the jurisdiction of the court. It allows the
court to render a decision that is binding on the accused. However, unlike jurisdiction over the subject
matter, the right to challenge or object to a trial court's jurisdiction over the person of the accused may be
waived by silence or inaction before the entering of a plea during arraignment.

Akin to the foregoing discussions on the trial court's acquisition of jurisdiction over the subject matter, the
authority of an officer or handling prosecutor in the filing of an Information also has nothing to do with
the voluntary appearance or validity of the arrest of the accused.

Nature of the Requirement of Obtaining a Prior Written Authority or Approval from the Provincial,
City or Chief State Prosecutor

To understand this nature, it is necessary to analyze such a requisite in the context of the rights accorded
by the Constitution to the accused. At the outset, the Court deems it noteworthy to point out that some of
the more serious grounds which tread on the fine line of constitutional infirmity may even be waived by
the accused.

One such example, as mentioned earlier in the discussions pertaining to Sec. 3(c) of Rule 117, is the right
of an accused to question the legality of his or her arrest as being a violation of his or her constitutional
right to due process.

Another example is the right of an accused to be informed of the nature and cause of accusation against
him or her, a right which is given life during the arraignment of the accused. The theory in law is that

3
since the accused officially begins to prepare his defense against the accusation on the basis of the recitals
in the Information read to him or her during arraignment, then the prosecution must establish its case on
the basis of the same Information.

Accordingly, in instances pertaining to duplicity of offenses (where a single Complaint or Information

In this regard, the Court points out that there is nothing in the aforementioned provision which requires a
prior authority, approval or signature of the provincial, city or chief state prosecutor for an Information to
be sufficient.

Consistent with the foregoing observations, if some grounds for the quashal of an Information with
serious constitutional implications may be waived, it is with more reason that the ground on securing a
prior written approval or authority from the provincial, city or chief state prosecutor, which has nothing
to do with the Bill of Rights or with a trial court's jurisdiction to take cognizance of a case, can also be
waived by the accused.

In a nutshell, the Court reiterates that even some constitutionally guaranteed rights may be expressly or
impliedly waived by the accused. The perceived right of the accused to question a handling prosecutor's
authority in the filing of an Information does not even have any constitutional or statutory bearing. At
best, it is only recognized by this Court, pursuant to its rule-making power, as a procedural device
available for the accused to invoke in aid of the orderly administration of justice. Accordingly, such
requirement to obtain a prior written authority or approval from the provincial, city or chief state
prosecutor is considered merely a formal, and not a jurisdictional, requisite which may be waived by the
accused.

Conclusion

All told, the handling prosecutor's authority, particularly as it does not appear on the face of the
Information, has no connection to the trial court's power to hear and decide a case. Hence, Sec. 3(d), Rule
117, requiring a handling prosecutor to secure a prior written authority or approval from the provincial,
city or chief state prosecutor before filing an Information with the courts, may be waived by the accused
through silence, acquiescence, or failure to raise such ground during arraignment or before entering a
plea. If, at all, such deficiency is merely formal and can be cured at any stage of the proceedings in a
criminal case.

Moreover, both the State and the accused are entitled to the constitutional guarantee of due process -
especially when the most contentious of issues involve jurisdictional matters. A denial of such guarantee
against any of the parties of the case amounts to grave abuse of discretion. Consequently, a judgment of

4
acquittal or order of dismissal amounting to an acquittal which is tainted with grave abuse of discretion
becomes void and cannot amount to a first jeopardy.

Henceforth, all previous doctrines laid down by this Court, holding that the lack of signature and
approval of the provincial, city or chief state prosecutor on the face of the Information shall divest the
court of jurisdiction over the person of the accused and the subject matter in a criminal action, are hereby
abandoned. It is sufficient for the validity of the Information or Complaint, as the case may be, that the
Resolution of the investigating prosecutor recommending for the filing of the same in court bears the
imprimatur of the provincial, city or chief state prosecutor whose approval is required by Sec. 1 of R.A.
No. 5180185 and is adopted under Sec. 4, Rule 112 of the Rules of Court.

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing premises, the Court DENIES the Petition for Review on
Certiorari filed by Gina A. Villa Gomez