Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PEOPLE v. ZEIDA AURORA B. GARFIN

This case has been cited 3 times or more.

	GR No. 216920 2016-01-13	GIRLIE M. QUISAY v. PEOPLE PERLAS-BERNABE, J.
In this relation, People v. Garfin[22] firmly instructs that the filing of an Information by an officer without the requisite authority to file the same constitutes a jurisdictional infirmity which cannot be cured by silence, waiver, acquiescence, or even by express consent. Hence, such ground may be raised at any stage of the proceedings.[23]
	GR No. 164258 2012-08-22	ESTRELLA TAGLAY v. JUDGE MARIVIC TRABAJO DARAY PERALTA, J.
More importantly, what justifies the dismissal of the case is that the Information filed with the MCTC cannot be used as a basis for the valid indictment of petitioner before the RTC acting as a Family Court, because there was no allegation therein of private complainant's minority. To proceed to trial before the RTC on the basis of the Information filed with the MCTC would be an exercise in futility as there is an infirmity in the Information constituting a jurisdictional defect which cannot be cured. There is no point in proceeding under a defective Information that could never be the basis of a valid conviction.[22] The Information filed with the MCTC must thus first be amended and thereafter filed with the RTC. Pending the filing of such Information, the RTC has not yet acquired jurisdiction because while a court may have jurisdiction over the subject matter, it does not acquire jurisdiction over the case itself until its jurisdiction is invoked with the filing of a valid Information.[23]
	GR NO. 153284 2007-04-17	REGIONAL STATE PROSECUTOR SANTIAGO M. TURINGAN v. ZEIDA AURORA B. GARFIN CORONA, J.
The issue in this petition whether or not state prosecutor Tolentino had the authority to file the Information for violation of RA 8282 despite the absence of a written authority or approval of the provincial or state prosecutor is similar to that in People v. Garfin.[10] In that case, the same state prosecutor Tolentino charged Serafin Saballegue also for violation of Section 22(a) in relation to Sections 19(b) and 28(e) of RA 8282. The certification accompanying the Information (which was identical to the certification in the Information against Apolinar) was also signed by Tolentino. The case was also raffled to the sala of respondent Judge Garfin.