G.R. No. 224597 - People vs. Cubay y Ugsalan

The case involves the filing of an information charging Serafin Saballegue with violation of Section 22(a) in relation to Sections 19(b) and 28(e) of Republic Act No. 8282 (Social Security Act).
The information was allegedly filed by State Prosecutor Romulo SJ. Tolentino, Special Prosecutor on SSS Cases in Region V, from the Regional State Prosecutor’s Office in Legazpi City.
The information accused Saballegue, proprietor of Saballegue Printing Press, of willfully and unlawfully neglecting to remit required premiums and penalties due to the SSS for the period from January 1990 to December 1999, and as of a computation on March 15, 2000.
A certification attached to the information claimed that the investigation was conducted under oath and that there were reasonable grounds to believe in the commission of the offense; it also stated that the filing was done with the prior authority and approval of the Regional State Prosecutor.

The case was raffled to Branch 19 of the Regional Trial Court of Naga City, presided by Judge Zeida Aurora B. Garfin.
On September 24, 2001, the accused pleaded not guilty, and the case proceeded to pre-trial.
Three days after the plea, the accused filed a motion to dismiss the case on the ground that the information was filed without the prior written authority or approval of the city prosecutor, as required under Section 4, Rule 112 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure.
The People, represented by State Prosecutor Tolentino, filed an opposition to the motion, and subsequent filings included a rejoinder by the accused and further replies by the prosecution.

The RTC issued its first questioned Order on February 26, 2002, granting the motion to dismiss based on the non-compliance with Section 4, Rule 112 (lack of required prior written approval).

The court held that a defect in the filing—even if the defendant had pleaded—could not be cured by his silence or by waiver.
The court referenced precedents (e.g., People vs. Eduarte and Villa vs. IbaAez) stressing that issues of jurisdiction may be raised at any stage of the proceedings.

A motion for reconsideration was subsequently filed by the People, citing alleged inherent authority of the State Prosecutor as special prosecutor designated for SSS cases through various administrative directives and letters of commendation.
On April 3, 2002, the RTC dismissed the motion for reconsideration as being “a mere scrap of paper” for lack of compliance with the notice requirement under Rule 15 of the Rules of Court.

The prior written approval of the city or provincial prosecutor is no longer required because of the administrative supervision delegated to the Regional State Prosecutor.
The designation of State Prosecutor Tolentino as special prosecutor should suffice to file the information even without proceeding procurement of city prosecutor’s written authority.

The Rules on Criminal Procedure mandate that the city or provincial prosecutor’s approval is essential before the filing of an information.
The lack of this requisite approval constitutes a jurisdictional defect that prevents the court from properly acquiring jurisdiction over the case.

Additional arguments involved procedural issues concerning the timeliness of the motion for reconsideration and the computation of reglementary periods, particularly in light of special holidays affecting filing dates.

Whether the information, filed by a state prosecutor without the prior written authority or approval of the city or provincial prosecutor (or chief state prosecutor), is fatally defective such that:

The court lacks jurisdiction to try the case consummated by the filing of the information; and
Such defect is not waived by the accused’s plea to the information.

Whether the designation of a special prosecutor (State Prosecutor Tolentino) under administrative orders or letters of commendation can serve as an adequate substitute for the mandatory prior written authorization by the city or provincial prosecutor.

Whether the filing of the motion for reconsideration (and subsequent pleadings) affected or tolled the reglementary period for filing an appeal under Rule 65.
Considerations regarding the impact of holidays (specifically Good Friday) on the computation of the reglementary period.