G.R. No. 216920 - Quisay vs. People

On December 28, 2012, the Office of the City Prosecutor of Makati City (OCP-Makati) issued a Resolution (Pasiya) finding probable cause to charge petitioner Girlie M. Quisay with violation of Section 10 of Republic Act No. 7610, the "Special Protection of Children Against Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination Act."
An Information (Pabatid Sakdal) was filed on January 11, 2013, charging petitioner with the said crime.

On April 12, 2013, petitioner moved to quash the Information, arguing lack of authority of the officer who filed it.
She noted that while the Pasiya 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), the Information was penned only by ACP De La Cruz without approval from any higher authority.
Petitioner emphasized that no written authority or approval by the City Prosecutor appeared in the Pasiya and the Information except a Certification by ACP De La Cruz claiming prior written authority.
Petitioner thus asserted that the Information was void and should be quashed as tainted with jurisdictional defect.

The prosecution argued that the review prosecutor, SACP Hirang, had authority to approve the Pasiya pursuant to OCP-Makati Office Order No. 32.
It also claimed the Information was filed with prior approval of the City Prosecutor, as shown by ACP De La Cruz’s Certification in the Information.

The Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 144, Makati, denied the motion to quash on May 8, 2013, finding that the Certification attached to the Information sufficiently complied with the prior written authority requirement under Section 4, Rule 112 of the Rules of Court.
Reconsideration was also denied on July 10, 2013.

Petitioner filed a petition for certiorari before the CA.
On October 10, 2014, the CA affirmed the RTC’s denial of the motion to quash.
The CA held that pursuant to Section 9 of RA 10071 (Prosecution Service Act of 2010) and OCP-Makati Office Order No. 32, the City Prosecutor delegated authority to SACP Hirang to approve resolutions and file Informations.
The CA further stated that the Certification by ACP De La Cruz in the Information granted it presumption of regularity in official acts in absence of contrary evidence.
Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was denied by the CA on January 30, 2015, prompting the present petition to the Supreme Court.

Whether or not the Court of Appeals correctly held that the Regional Trial Court did not gravely abuse its discretion in denying petitioner’s motion to quash the Information filed against her for lack of authority of the officer who filed it.