Scribd
Upload
1K views1 page

Gina Villa Gomez, Petitioner vs. People of The Philippines, Respondent

The petitioner was arrested for corruption of public officials and charged based on a resolution from the Office of the City Prosecutor of Makati finding probable cause. The regional trial court dismissed the case and ordered the petitioner's release, ruling that the prosecutor lacked jurisdiction. The prosecution appealed. The Court of Appeals reversed, issuing an arrest warrant. The petitioner appealed to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court ruled that there is no law requiring an information to be signed by the top prosecutor in order to confer jurisdiction on trial courts. Once jurisdiction is established, it does not cease just because the prosecutor filing the information lacked authority. At most, this raises a question of standing, not jurisdiction.

Uploaded by

Anne Kerstine Bastinen
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
1K views1 page

Gina Villa Gomez, Petitioner vs. People of The Philippines, Respondent

The petitioner was arrested for corruption of public officials and charged based on a resolution from the Office of the City Prosecutor of Makati finding probable cause. The regional trial court dismissed the case and ordered the petitioner's release, ruling that the prosecutor lacked jurisdiction. The prosecution appealed. The Court of Appeals reversed, issuing an arrest warrant. The petitioner appealed to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court ruled that there is no law requiring an information to be signed by the top prosecutor in order to confer jurisdiction on trial courts. Once jurisdiction is established, it does not cease just because the prosecutor filing the information lacked authority. At most, this raises a question of standing, not jurisdiction.

Uploaded by

Anne Kerstine Bastinen
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

GINA VILLA GOMEZ, petitioner VS.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent

FACTS

The police operatives arrested the petitioner and a complaint against her was filed on corruption of
public officials under the Article 212 of the Revised Penal Code. The same complaint inquest by the
office of the City Prosecutor of Makati. Sometime on September 21, 2010, a resolution was issued by the
OCP of Makati City finding probable cause that the petitioner might have offered P10,000.00 to both
PO2 Ronnie Aseboque in exchange for the release of her companion Cabillo and was filed by the
prosecutor. RTC dismissed and ordered the jail warden for the release of BJMP Makati to release the
petitioner. This was declared by the RTC as submitted for decision after both parties had finished
presenting their respective evidence. RTC, 2 years after issued an order without any motion from either
parties the release of the accused as the prosecutor did lack jurisdiction the case thus RTC ruled to
dismiss the case and released the accused from BJMP. Aggrieved with the result the prosecution filed a
motion for reconsideration as the RTC misappreciated the record and misinterpreted the law as OCP’s
resolution was not only signed by the city prosecutor Aspi himself but also contained his approval for
filing of the information which the RTC denied. CA then reversed the ruling of RTC and issued a warrant
for arrest. The petitioner the filed a motion for reconsideration but was denied thus it was brought
before the supreme court.

ISSUE

Whether or not the criminal information submitted by prosecution lacked authority

RULING

No, there is no law that requires that an Information filed must be signed by the provincial, city, or chief
state prosecutor in order for trial courts to acquire jurisdiction over a criminal case. The ruling in Villa vs.
Ibanez which states that the absence of the signature of a city, provincial, or chief state prosecutor
results in a jurisdictional defect is unconstitutional. Only a law may confer jurisdiction to courts of law.
Once jurisdiction is conferred, the jurisdiction does not cease simply because the prosecutor who filed
the Information had no authority. At worst, the absence of authority on the part of the prosecutor who
filed the Information only gives rise to a question on his standing in court.

You might also like