Aspiras y Corpuz vs. People of the Philippines

The lack of prior written authority or approval of the provincial, city, or chief state prosecutor in the filing of an Information is a waivable procedural defect that does not affect the trial court's acquisition of jurisdiction over the subject matter or the person of the accused. Where the accused fails to question the handling prosecutor's authority in a timely motion to quash before entering his plea, the objection is deemed waived. Additionally, self-defense must be proven with clear and convincing evidence, and the accused bears the burden of establishing all its elements, including unlawful aggression on the part of the victim.

Kenneth Karl Aspiras y Corpuz (Aspiras) and Jet Lee Reyes (Jet Lee) were common-law spouses living with Jet Lee's mother, Cleopatra Reyes, in a three-storey house in Tondo, Manila. The couple occupied the third-floor room, while Cleopatra and her granddaughters occupied the second-floor room. The case arose from a stabbing incident on January 13, 2011, in which Aspiras was charged with murder, later convicted of homicide. The procedural backdrop involves Rule 112, Section 4 of the Rules of Court, which requires the prior written authority or approval of the provincial or city prosecutor before an investigating prosecutor may file an Information.

Kenneth Karl Aspiras y Corpuz (Aspiras) and Jet Lee Reyes (Jet Lee) were common-law spouses living with Jet Lee's mother, Cleopatra Reyes, in a three-storey house at 409 Moriones Street, Tondo, Manila. The couple occupied the third-floor room, while Cleopatra and her granddaughters occupied the second-floor room. At 6:00 p.m. on January 13, 2011, Rio, a family friend, arrived with a bottle of Emperador brandy and invited Aspiras for a drinking spree while playing cards. They were later joined by Jet Lee and three others, Aiza, Jersey, and Jellie. The drinking spree ended at around 10:00 p.m.

While Cleopatra was resting in her room, she overheard Aspiras and Jet Lee arguing as they went up to the third floor. She then heard Jet Lee screaming for help and shouting that she was stabbed by Aspiras. Cleopatra hurriedly went out of her room and met the half-naked Aspiras descending from the third floor with bloodied hands. Shortly after, Cleopatra saw Jet Lee also going down the stairs, holding onto her bloodied side. Jet Lee embraced her mother and said, "mommy sinaksak po ako ni Kenneth." Cleopatra immediately sought help from a neighbor and brought Jet Lee to Mary Johnston Hospital, where Jet Lee died shortly thereafter.

Cleopatra testified that Aspiras and Jet Lee usually argued because of jealousy, especially since Jet Lee was a dance instructor who often came home with pictures of her male students. Aiza Padillo, a friend of the couple, testified that in September 2010, Aspiras suddenly arrived at her house, dragged Jet Lee to the bathroom, hit her, and exclaimed, "hindi ka pakikinabangan ng iba sisirain ko mukha mo." Padillo described Aspiras as the jealous type who tends to hurt others, and revealed that Aspiras would pull Jet Lee's hair, slap her, or kick her out of jealousy. Jersey Reyes, Jet Lee's brother, testified that he would hear the couple quarreling when he lived in the house, and that he was the one who found the knife in the couple's room and turned it over to the police. PO2 James G. Lagasca, the investigating officer, testified that Aspiras was shouting "hindi ko sinasadya" while visibly drunk at the police station. Dr. Jesille Cui Baluyot, the medico-legal officer, declared that Jet Lee sustained two stab wounds—a defensive wound on the right shoulder and a fatal wound on the right abdomen—as well as hematoma on the lateral side of the right eye.

For his part, Aspiras claimed that after the drinking session, he went up to their room, washed Jet Lee's uniform, and hung them in the bathroom. He then rejoined the people in the sala until he fell asleep. An angry Jet Lee woke him up, and both went up to their room. Aspiras claimed he slept but was awakened by Jet Lee, who was mad because her clothes were hung in the bathroom and not outside. He noticed Jet Lee holding a knife in her right hand. He told her to put the knife down, but she refused and thrust the knife toward his stomach. He parried the thrust and tried to wrest the knife from her hand, saying, "Nag-aagawan po kami, naghilahan kami ng kutsilyo." Jet Lee suddenly shouted "Ahhh" while holding the right side of her body, and Aspiras saw blood where the knife pierced her body. He claimed he did not intend to stab her. Aspiras ran downstairs, met Cleopatra in the stairway, told her Jet Lee "may saksak," and continued running until the police arrested him. On cross-examination, Aspiras admitted he was the jealous type, but only when he and Jet Lee were still a new couple.

The Regional Trial Court found proof beyond reasonable doubt that Aspiras stabbed Jet Lee, but found no presence of evident premeditation, treachery, or abuse of superior strength to qualify the killing to murder. It rejected Aspiras' claim of self-defense for failure to show sufficient motive for Jet Lee to stab him, noting that had Jet Lee intended to stab Aspiras, she could have done so while he was asleep. The trial court found Aspiras' version of the incident sketchy on material points, particularly on the cause of the fight and the specifics of how Jet Lee was stabbed. The Court of Appeals affirmed with modification, adding exemplary damages.

• Invalidity of the Information: Petitioner argued that the Court of Appeals erred in not annulling the Regional Trial Court's Decision for lack of jurisdiction, since the Information was not signed and approved by the City Prosecutor as required under Rule 112, Section 4 of the Rules of Court. He contended that the criminal case must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
• Self-Defense: Petitioner maintained that he was only defending himself from the attack of the deceased, causing the latter to be accidentally stabbed by her own knife, and thus he should not be held liable for homicide.

• Validity of the Information: Respondent countered that the Information was valid, pointing to the stamp indicating approval "for the City Prosecutor," the certification of the Assistant City Prosecutor that it was filed with prior authority, the Resolution dated May 3, 2011 signed by the City Prosecutor, and the presumption of regularity in the filing of the Information.
• Rejection of Self-Defense: Respondent argued that petitioner's claim of self-defense was properly rejected by the lower courts, as the elements of self-defense were not established, and the evidence showed that petitioner was the one who would hurt Jet Lee during bouts of jealousy.

• Validity of the Information: Whether the Court of Appeals erred in not annulling and setting aside the Regional Trial Court's Decision for lack of jurisdiction since the Information was not signed and approved by the City Prosecutor as required under Rule 112, Section 4 of the Rules of Court.
• Conviction for Homicide: Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the petitioner's conviction for homicide.

• Validity of the Information: No. The lack of prior written authority or approval of the city prosecutor in filing the Information is a waivable procedural defect that does not affect the trial court's jurisdiction over the subject matter or the person of the accused. Petitioner's failure to file a timely motion to quash before entering his plea constituted a waiver of his right to question the defect.
• Conviction for Homicide: No. The conviction for homicide was affirmed, as petitioner failed to establish the elements of self-defense with clear and convincing evidence, and the consistent factual findings of the lower courts bind the Court in a Rule 45 review.

• Validity of the Information: The Court applied the doctrine in Gomez vs. People, which held that the lack of written authority or approval to file an Information is a waivable ground for a motion to quash. The requirement of prior written authority or approval under Rule 112, Section 4 is a matter of procedure that does not affect the validity of the Information nor the jurisdiction of the court. The Court emphasized that non-compliance with Section 4 of Rule 112 merely affects the "standing" of the handling prosecutor to appear for the Government, and the failure of an accused to question the handling prosecutor's authority is considered a valid waiver. The Court explicitly abandoned the doctrine in Villa vs. Ibañez and derivative cases like Cudia vs. Court of Appeals and People vs. Garfin, which held that unauthorized filing of an Information is a jurisdictional defect that cannot be cured by waiver. Since petitioner did not question the supposed lack of authority during trial and raised it for the first time on appeal, his objection was deemed waived.
• Conviction for Homicide: The Court held that the issue of whether petitioner acted in self-defense is a question of fact not proper in a Rule 45 review. Where the accused raises self-defense, the burden shifts upon him to prove with clear and convincing evidence the elements under Article 11(1) of the Revised Penal Code: (1) unlawful aggression amounting to an actual or imminent threat to the life and limb of the person acting in self-defense; (2) reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel the unlawful aggression; and (3) lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person claiming self-defense. The Court found that petitioner failed to establish unlawful aggression, as his narration that Jet Lee wanted to kill him over hung school uniforms was impossible, illogical, and unconvincing—if she intended to stab him, she would have done so while he was asleep. Even if there was aggression, the means employed by petitioner were not reasonable or commensurate with the purported threat, as the two stab wounds and hematoma on the victim's eye belied his claim of accidental stabbing while trying to grab the knife. There was also no proof that petitioner did not provoke Jet Lee into attacking him. The consistent factual findings of the lower courts bound the Court, and petitioner failed to show any material fact or circumstance overlooked or misapplied by the lower courts.

• Waiver of objection to prosecutor's authority to file Information — The lack of prior written authority or approval of the provincial, city, or chief state prosecutor in the filing of an Information is a waivable procedural defect, not a jurisdictional one. An accused who fails to question the handling prosecutor's authority in a timely motion to quash before entering his plea is deemed to have waived such objection. The Court abandoned the contrary doctrine in Villa vs. Ibañez and its derivative cases.
• Self-defense — Self-defense is a justifying circumstance under Article 11(1) of the Revised Penal Code that must be proven by the accused with clear and convincing evidence. The accused must establish: (1) unlawful aggression on the part of the victim amounting to an actual or imminent threat to the life and limb of the person acting in self-defense; (2) reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel the unlawful aggression; and (3) lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person claiming self-defense. Self-defense cannot be appreciated where it is uncorroborated by competent evidence or is patently doubtful.

• "Lack of prior written authority or approval on the face of the Information by the prosecuting officers authorized to approve and sign the same has nothing to do with a trial court's acquisition of jurisdiction in a criminal case." — This passage from Gomez vs. People, quoted by the Court, articulates the controlling doctrine that the prosecutor's lack of authority is not a jurisdictional defect, forming the basis for the Court's ruling on the validity of the Information.
• "the failure of an accused to question the handling prosecutor's authority in the filing of an Information will be considered as a valid waiver and courts may brush aside the effect of such procedural lapse." — This passage establishes the waiver rule applied in this case, holding that petitioner's failure to raise the objection in a timely motion to quash barred him from raising it on appeal.
• "Self-defense cannot be appreciated where it was uncorroborated by competent evidence, or is patently doubtful." — This passage states the standard for evaluating self-defense claims, which the Court applied in rejecting petitioner's version of the incident as impossible, illogical, and unconvincing.

• Gomez vs. People, G.R. No. 216824, November 10, 2020 — Controlling precedent; the Court applied its holding that the lack of prior written authority or approval to file an Information is a waivable procedural defect, not a jurisdictional one, and that the failure to question it in a timely motion to quash constitutes waiver.
• Villa vs. Ibañez, 88 Phil. 402 (1951) — Abandoned; the Court explicitly abandoned this doctrine, which held that unauthorized filing of an Information is a jurisdictional defect that cannot be cured by waiver, silence, or acquiescence.
• Cudia vs. Court of Appeals, 348 Phil. 190 (1998) — Abandoned as a derivative case of Villa vs. Ibañez, cited by petitioner in arguing that unauthorized filing of the Information is a jurisdictional defect.
• People vs. Garfin, 470 Phil. 211 (2004) — Abandoned as a derivative case of Villa vs. Ibañez, cited by petitioner in arguing that unauthorized filing of the Information is a jurisdictional defect.
• People vs. Lopez, Jr. y Mantalaba, 830 Phil. 771 (2018) — Cited for the elements of self-defense under Article 11(1) of the Revised Penal Code.
• Flores vs. People, 705 Phil. 119 (2013) — Cited for the rule that factual issues are not proper in a Rule 45 review.
• Nacar vs. Gallery Frames, 716 Phil. 267 (2013) — Cited for the imposition of 6% interest per annum on damages from the date of finality of the decision.

• Section 4, Rule 112, Rules of Court — Requires the prior written authority or approval of the provincial or city prosecutor or chief state prosecutor before an investigating prosecutor may file an Information. The Court held that non-compliance with this requirement is a waivable procedural defect that does not affect the trial court's jurisdiction.
• Section 3(d), Rule 117, Rules of Court — Lists as a ground for motion to quash that the officer who filed the Information had no authority to do so. The Court held that this ground is waivable if not raised before entering a plea.
• Article 11(1), Revised Penal Code — Defines self-defense as a justifying circumstance, requiring unlawful aggression, reasonable necessity of the means employed, and lack of sufficient provocation. The Court applied these elements in rejecting petitioner's claim of self-defense.

Lazaro-Javier, Inting, and M. Lopez, JJ., concurred. Kho, Jr., J., was on leave.