Gomez v. People
ABANDONMENTFacts
The Antecedents: Gina Villa Gomez was arrested by police operatives on September 17, 2010, for corruption of public officials under Article 212 of the Revised Penal Code. A complaint was filed, and the Office of the City Prosecutor of Makati City found probable cause, recommending prosecution for offering P10,000.00 to police officers for the release of her companion. An Information was subsequently filed with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati City. Procedural History: After trial on the merits, the case was submitted for decision. However, the RTC, motu proprio, dismissed the criminal case on February 13, 2013, finding a jurisdictional defect because the Information lacked the required signature or approval from the City Prosecutor. The RTC denied the Prosecution's motion for reconsideration on April 29, 2013. The Prosecution then filed a Petition for Certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA), which granted the petition on October 9, 2014, annulling the RTC's orders and reinstating the criminal case. The CA denied the petitioner's motion for reconsideration on February 4, 2015. The Petition: Petitioner Gina Villa Gomez filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, assailing the CA's decision. She argues that the RTC correctly dismissed the case due to the handling prosecutor's lack of authority to file the Information, asserting that such a jurisdictional defect cannot be cured. The Prosecution, through the Solicitor General, contends that the RTC gravely abused its discretion by dismissing the case motu proprio, as the City Prosecutor's Resolution recommending approval for filing was signed by him, indicating tacit approval. The Prosecution also argues that the lack of authority is a waivable defect and not a jurisdictional one, and that the RTC's dismissal without giving the Prosecution an opportunity to be heard violated due process.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals correctly found grave abuse of discretion on the Regional Trial Court's part for quashing the Information and dismissing the criminal case on the ground of absence of jurisdiction relative to Assistant City Prosecutor Paggao's failure to secure a prior written authority or stamped approval from City Prosecutor Aspi to file the same pleading and conduct the prosecution against the accused. Whether the Court of Appeals correctly found grave abuse of discretion on the Regional Trial Court's part for (1) motu proprio quashing the Information; and (2) dismissing the criminal case despite having already been submitted for decision and without giving the Prosecution an opportunity to be heard.
Ruling
The Petition for Review on Certiorari is DENIED. The Decision of the Court of Appeals is AFFIRMED. The Regional Trial Court of Makati City, Branch 57, is ORDERED to RESUME its proceedings in Criminal Case No. 10-1829 with utmost dispatch.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of whether the Court of Appeals correctly found grave abuse of discretion on the Regional Trial Court's part for quashing the Information and dismissing the criminal case on the ground of absence of jurisdiction relative to Assistant City Prosecutor Paggao's failure to secure a prior written authority or stamped approval from City Prosecutor Aspi to file the same pleading and conduct the prosecution against the accused: The Court abandoned previous jurisprudence holding that an Information filed without the explicit signature or approval of the City Prosecutor on its face divests the court of jurisdiction. The Court clarified that such a deficiency is merely a formal or procedural infirmity, not a jurisdictional defect, and does not affect the trial court's jurisdiction over the subject matter or the person of the accused. This defect is waivable by the accused if not raised before arraignment, and its absence does not prevent the court from acquiring jurisdiction. The Court emphasized that the State's right to prosecute should not be defeated by mere procedural technicalities, particularly when the underlying Resolution recommending the filing of the Information bears the necessary approval, as in this case where City Prosecutor Aspi signed the Resolution recommending the Information for approval. On the issue of whether the Court of Appeals correctly found grave abuse of discretion on the Regional Trial Court's part for (1) motu proprio quashing the Information; and (2) dismissing the criminal case despite having already been submitted for decision and without giving the Prosecution an opportunity to be heard: The Regional Trial Court committed grave abuse of discretion by motu proprio quashing the Information and dismissing the case after it had already been submitted for decision and without giving the Prosecution an opportunity to be heard. The Court reiterated that only the accused may move to quash an Information, and a judge cannot initiate such a motion motu proprio, except in cases involving grounds that are non-waivable and affect jurisdiction over the offense or the person, or where the action or liability has been extinguished, or double jeopardy has attached. However, the ground of lack of authority of the handling prosecutor to file an Information, as discussed, is not a jurisdictional defect and is waivable. Therefore, the RTC's summary dismissal violated the State's right to due process, as it was deprived of its opportunity to be heard and to present its case, rendering the dismissal void and not subject to double jeopardy.
Main Doctrine
The Supreme Court, in this en banc decision, abandons previous jurisprudence that held an Information filed without the explicit signature or approval of the City Prosecutor on its face to be a jurisdictional defect. The Court now holds that such a deficiency is merely a formal or procedural infirmity that does not affect the trial court's jurisdiction over the subject matter or the person of the accused. This defect is waivable by the accused if not raised before arraignment, and its absence does not prevent the court from acquiring jurisdiction, especially when the underlying Resolution recommending the filing of the Information bears the necessary approval. The ruling emphasizes that the State's right to prosecute should not be defeated by mere procedural technicalities, upholding the principle of due process for both parties.