Case Digest: Quisay vs. People, G.R. No. 216920, January 13, 2016

                           Motion to Quash, Authority | Criminal Procedure


Facts:

Girlie M. Quisay filed a motion to quash the information filed against her for violation of Republic Act No. 7610 (Special Protection of Children Against Abuse Exploitation and Discrimination Act) due to lack of authority of the person who filed it.

The Office of the City Prosecutor of Makati City issued a resolution finding probable cause against petitioner.

Petitioner argued that the Pasiya (resolution) and Pabatid Sakdal (information) did not show prior written authority or approval from the City Prosecutor for the filing of the information.

In support of her motion, petitioner pointed out that the Pasiya issued by the OCP-Makati was penned by Assistant City Prosecutor Estefano H. De La Cruz (ACP De La Cruz) and approved by Senior Assistant City Prosecutor Edgardo G. Hirang (SACP Hirang), while the Pabatid Sakdal was penned by ACP De La Cruz, without any approval from any higher authority, albeit with a Certification claiming that ACP De La Cruz has prior written authority or approval from the City Prosecutor in filing the said Information. 

In this regard, petitioner claimed that nothing in the aforesaid Pasiya and Pabatid Sakdal would show that ACP De La Cruz and/or SACP Hirang had prior written authority or approval from the City Prosecutor to file or approve the filing of the Information against her. As such, the Information must be quashed for being tainted with a jurisdictional defect that cannot be cured.

The Regional Trial Court (RTC) denied petitioner's motion to quash, finding that the certification attached to the information complied with the requirement of prior written authority or approval.

The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the RTC's ruling, stating that the City Prosecutor had the authority to delegate the power to approve the filing of the information.

The CA also held that the certification in the information indicated prior written authority or approval from the City Prosecutor.


Issue:

WoN the lower court gravely abused its discretion in dismissing petitioner's motion to quash.


Held: GRANTED .

The petition is meritorious.

Section 4, Rule 112 of the 2000 Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure states that the filing of a complaint or information requires a prior written authority or approval of the named officers therein before a complaint or information may be filed before the courts, viz.:

SECTION 4. Resolution of investigating prosecutor and its review. - If the investigating prosecutor finds cause to hold the respondent for trial, he shall prepare the resolution and information. He shall certify under oath in the information that he, or as shown by the record, an authorized officer, has personally examined the complainant and his witnesses; that there is reasonable ground to believe that a crime has been committed and that the accused is probably guilty thereof; that the accused was informed of the complaint and of the evidence submitted against him; and that he was given an opportunity to submit controverting evidence. Otherwise, he shall recommend the dismissal of the complaint.

Within five (5) days from his resolution, he shall forward the record of the case to the provincial or city prosecutor or chief state prosecutor, or to the Ombudsman or his deputy in cases of offenses cognizable by the Sandiganbayan in the exercise of its original jurisdiction. They shall act on the resolution within ten (10) days from their receipt thereof and shall immediately inform the parties of such action.

No complaint or information may be filed or dismissed by an investigating prosecutor without the prior written authority or approval of the provincial or city prosecutor or chief state prosecutor or the Ombudsman or his deputy.

x x x x (Emphases and underscoring supplied)

Thus, as a general rule, complaints or informations filed before the courts without the prior written authority or approval of the foregoing authorized officers renders the same defective and, therefore, subject to quashal pursuant to Section 3 (d), Rule 117 of the same Rules, to wit:

SECTION 3. Grounds. - The accused may move to quash the complaint or information on any of the following grounds:

x x x x

(d) That the officer who filed the information had no authority to do so;

x x x x (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)

In this relation, People v. Garfin 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.

In the case at bar, the CA affirmed the denial of petitioner's motion to quash on the grounds that: (a) the City Prosecutor of Makati may delegate its authority to approve the filing of the Pabatid Sakdal pursuant to Section 9 of RA 10071, as well as OCP-Makati Office Order No. 32; and (b) the Pabatid Sakdal contained a Certification stating that its filing before the RTC was with the prior written authority or approval from the City Prosecutor.

The CA correctly held that based on the wordings of Section 9 of RA 10071, which gave the City Prosecutor the power to "[i]nvestigate and/or cause to be investigated all charges of crimes, misdemeanors and violations of penal laws and ordinances within their respective jurisdictions, and have the necessary information or complaint prepared or made and filed against the persons accused," he may indeed delegate his power to his subordinates as he may deem necessary in the interest of the prosecution service. The CA also correctly stressed that it is under the auspice of this provision that the City Prosecutor of Makati issued OCP-Makati Office Order No. 32, which gave division chiefs or review prosecutors "authority to approve or act on any resolution, order, issuance, other action, and any information recommended by any prosecutor for approval,5 without necessarily diminishing the City Prosecutor's authority to act directly in appropriate cases.26 By virtue of the foregoing issuances, the City Prosecutor validly designated SACP Hirang, Deputy City Prosecutor Emmanuel D. Medina, and Senior Assistant City Prosecutor William Celestino T. Uy as review prosecutors for the OCP-Makati.

In this light, the Pasiya or Resolution finding probable cause to indict petitioner of the crime charged, was validly made as it bore the approval of one of the designated review prosecutors for OCP-Makati, SACP Hirang, as evidenced by his signature therein.

Unfortunately, the same could not be said of the Pabatid Sakdal or Information filed before the RTC, as there was no showing that it was approved by either the City Prosecutor of Makati or any of the OCPMakati' s division chiefs or review prosecutors. All it contained was a Certification from ACP De La Cruz which stated, among others, that "DAGDAG KO PANG PINATUTUNAYAN na ang paghahain ng sakdal na ito ay may nakasulat na naunang pahintulot o pagpapatibay ng Panlunsod na Taga-Usig" - which translates to "and that the filing of the Information is with the prior authority and approval of the City Prosecutor."

In the cases of People v. Garfin, Turingan v. Garfin, and Tolentino v. Paqueo, the Court had already rejected similarly-worded certifications, uniformly holding that despite such certifications, the Informations were defective as it was shown that the officers filing the same in court either lacked the authority to do so or failed to show that they obtained prior written authority from any of those authorized officers enumerated in Section 4, Rule 112 of the 2000 Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure.

Here, aside from the bare and self-serving Certification, there was no proof that ACP De La Cruz was authorized to file the Pabatid Sakdal or Information before the RTC by himself. Records are bereft of any showing that the City Prosecutor of Makati had authorized ACP De La Cruz to do so by giving him prior written authority or by designating him as a division chief or review prosecutor of OCP-Makati. There is likewise nothing that would indicate that ACP De La Cruz sought the approval of either the City Prosecutor or any of those authorized pursuant to OCP-Makati Office Order No. 32 in filing the Pabatid Sakdal. Quite frankly, it is simply baffling how ACP De La Cruz was able to have the Pasiya approved by designated review prosecutor SACP Hirang but failed to have the Pabatid Sakdal approved by the same person or any other authorized officer in the OCP-Makati.

In view of the foregoing circumstances, the CA erred in according the Pabatid Sakdal the presumption of regularity in the performance of official functions solely on the basis of the Certification made by ACP De La Cruz considering the absence of any evidence on record clearly showing that ACP De La Cruz: (a) had any authority to file the same on his own; or (b) did seek the prior written approval from those authorized to do so before filing the Information before the RTC.

In conclusion, the CA erred in affirming the RTC's dismissal of petitioner's motion to quash as the Pabatid Sakdal or Information suffers from an incurable infirmity - that the officer who filed the same before the RTC had no authority to do so. Hence, the Pabatid Sakdal must be quashed, resulting in the dismissal of the criminal case against petitioner.

As a final note, it must be stressed that "[t]he Rules of Court governs the pleading, practice, and procedure in all courts of the Philippines. For the orderly administration of justice, the provisions contained therein should be followed by all litigants, but especially by the prosecution arm of the Govemment."

Popular posts from this blog

Election Laws: Requirements Before Election

REQUIREMENTS BEFORE ELECTION A. Registration Registration of Voters The right of a citizen to vote is necessarily conditioned upon certain procedural requirements he must undergo, among others, the process of registration. Registration regulates the exercise of the right of suffrage .  It is not a qualification for such right.  R.A. No. 8189, the Voter's Registration Act of 1996 (approved June 11, 1996) : Sec. 2. Declaration of Policy. It is the policy of the State to systematize the present method of registration in order to establish a clean, complete, permanent and updated list of voters. Sec. 3. Definition of Terms. – As used in this Act: Registration refers to the act of accomplishing and filing of a sworn application for registration by a qualified voter before the election officer of the city or municipality wherein he resides and including the same in the book of registered voters upon approval by the Election Registration Board; Registration Record refers to an ...
Read more

Case Digest: Cadajas vs. People, GR No. 247348, November 16, 2021

Evidence | Rule 130 Lopez, J, J. Petitioner: Christian Cadajas y Cabias Respondent: People of the Philippines  Recit Ver: The right to privacy under the 1987 Philippine Constitution protects individuals against government intrusions, not actions by private individuals. Since the evidence was obtained by AAA's mother, a private individual, it did not violate Cadajas' constitutional rights . Cadajas had no reasonable expectation of privacy regarding the messages, as he voluntarily gave his password to AAA. The prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that Cadajas induced AAA to send him nude photos, constituting child pornography under the relevant laws. The sweetheart defense was not applicable because the violation was a malum prohibitum offense, and the age disparity placed Cadajas in a position of power over AAA. The penalties prescribed by law for such offenses are within the legislative prerogative and justified by the potential for widespread harm through digital mean...
Read more

Case Digest: Manila Prince Hotel v. GSIS, GR. No. 122156, February 3, 1997

Political Law Review | Self-executing Provisions, Doctrine of Constitutional Supremacy The GSIS decided to privatize the Manila Hotel by selling 51% of its shares to a qualified bidder through public bidding. In the bidding, the Manila Prince Hotel Corporation (MPHC) offered ₱41.58 per share, which was ₱0.58 higher than the ₱41.00 per share offered by a Malaysian firm, Renong Berhad. Despite MPHC being a Filipino-owned corporation and having a higher bid, the GSIS awarded the sale to the Malaysian firm, citing that MPHC failed to match the terms of payment required. MPHC filed a petition, invoking Section 10, second paragraph, Article XII of the 1987 Constitution, which states: “ In the grant of rights, privileges, and concessions covering the national economy and patrimony, the State shall give preference to qualified Filipinos .” MPHC argued that the provision is self-executing and GSIS was bound to apply it without need for an enabling law. Whether Section 10, Article XII of the 19...
Read more