GR 216824 Perlas Bernabe (Digest)
G.R. No. 216824, November 10, 2020
Gina Villa Gomez, Petitioner, v. People of the Philippines, Respondent
FACTS
The case originated from a criminal Information filed against petitioner Gina Villa Gomez. The petitioner sought to quash the Information, arguing that the investigating prosecutor who filed it lacked the prior written authority or approval of the provincial, city, or chief state prosecutor, as required under procedural rules. She contended this defect was jurisdictional and could not be cured, rendering the Information void. The trial court denied her motion, a decision affirmed by the Court of Appeals. The petitioner elevated the case to the Supreme Court, insisting on the application of previous jurisprudence, notably Villa v. Ibañez, which treated such lack of approval as a fatal jurisdictional flaw invalidating the entire proceeding.
ISSUE
Whether the lack of prior written authority or approval from a superior prosecuting officer on the face of the filed Information constitutes a jurisdictional defect that cannot be waived by the accused.
RULING
The Supreme Court, through the concurring opinion of Justice Perlas-Bernabe, ruled that such a defect is NOT jurisdictional and is waivable if not raised before arraignment. The legal logic is anchored on a clear distinction between waivable and non-waivable grounds to quash an Information under Rule 117 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure. Section 3(d) of Rule 117, which pertains to the filing officer’s lack of authority, is not listed among the non-waivable grounds under Section 9 of the same Rule. The non-waivable grounds are exclusively those under Section 3(a) [facts charged do not constitute an offense], (b) [court lacks jurisdiction over the offense], (g) [extinction of criminal action], and (i) [double jeopardy].
Jurisdiction over the subject matter is conferred by law and determined by the allegations in the Information, not by procedural irregularities in its filing by the prosecution. The lack of a superior prosecutor’s stamp of approval does not affect the court’s fundamental power to hear and decide the case. Instead, it relates to the internal prosecutorial hierarchy and the certainty of the probable cause determination. This concern is addressed by the judicial function of the trial judge, who must independently determine probable cause for arrest upon filing of the Information. Furthermore, by proceeding to arraignment and trial without objecting, the accused is deemed to have waived this ground, and the prosecution, by continuing with the case, effectively ratifies the filing. Therefore, the petition was denied, and the appellate court’s decision was affirmed.