Title
Maximo vs. Villapando, Jr.
Case
G.R. No. 214925
Decision Date
Apr 26, 2017
ASB Realty directors accused of violating subdivision laws; perjury case against complainant dismissed due to defective Information filed without proper authority.
petitioners
respondents
denial of petition
A

Case Summary (G.R. No. 214925)

Factual and Transactional Background

Villapando was assignee of a condominium unit and parking slot at Legazpi Place, Makati. He filed a complaint with the Makati City prosecutor alleging violations by ASB Realty (and its officers/directors) of Sections 17, 20 and 25 of PD No. 957 (registration of contracts/deeds, time of completion, issuance of title). Maximo and Panganiban, who were later directors of ASB, in turn filed criminal complaints for perjury and related offenses against Villapando, alleging that Villapando falsely stated they were officers/directors at the time of the 1997 Deed of Sale.

Prosecutorial Proceedings and Resolutions

Assistant City Prosecutors Evangeline Viudez-Canobas and Benjamin S. Vermug, Jr. issued separate resolutions finding probable cause for perjury against Villapando (dismissing ancillary charges). Those resolutions were signed or marked “For the City Prosecutor” and were later the subject of motions for partial reconsideration by Villapando. The Office of the City Prosecutor issued Orders denying Villapando’s motions for partial reconsideration and affirmed the finding of probable cause; Villapando sought review before the Department of Justice, which denied procedural compliance and ultimately (in a separate resolution) later found the underlying PD No. 957 complaint to have prescribed.

Informations, Amended Information, and Certification Language

Informations (and an Amended Information) for perjury were filed in the MeTC, Branch 67, Makati. The Amended Information contained the prosecutor’s certification language required by Section 4, Rule 112 (including a statement that “the filing of this Information is with the prior authority or approval of the City Prosecutor”) and bore the signatures of the assistant prosecutors who handled the matter. Villapando’s principal procedural objection was that the persons who signed and filed the Informations lacked prior written authority of the City Prosecutor as mandated by Rule 112.

METC Proceedings: Motion to Quash and Denial

Villapando filed a Motion to Quash the Information on the ground that the Information was filed without the prior written authority of the City Prosecutor (and further argued that the facts alleged did not constitute an offense). The MeTC denied the Motion to Quash, reasoning that the certification in the Information and the presumption of regularity in prosecutorial acts sufficed as substantial compliance with the rule requiring prior written authority.

RTC Proceedings: Petition for Certiorari and Denial

Villapando elevated the denial of the MeTC’s Order to the RTC by petition for certiorari and prohibition. The RTC denied the petition and affirmed the MeTC’s denial of the Motion to Quash, reiterating the presumption of regularity in the filing of the Information based on the assistant prosecutor’s certification and the apparent approval of the resolution by a senior prosecutor.

Court of Appeals: Reversal and Dismissal Without Prejudice

On petition to the Court of Appeals, the CA reversed the RTC and dismissed the criminal case without prejudice to the filing of a new information by an authorized officer. The CA concluded the records did not contain the purported Office Order No. 32 or other proof of a valid delegation of authority from the City Prosecutor to the assistant prosecutors who approved or filed the Information; in the absence of such proof, the CA refused to apply the presumption of regularity and found the Information defective for want of the required prior written authority.

Consolidation and Issues Presented to the Supreme Court

Two petitions to the Supreme Court were consolidated: one by Maximo and Panganiban (challenging the CA’s dismissal) and one by Villapando (seeking review of the CA for not resolving whether violations of PD No. 957 were continuing offenses). Principal legal issues: (1) whether the Informations were valid for lack of prior written authority of the City Prosecutor or valid delegation; (2) whether Villapando committed procedural defects (forum shopping, false verification, failure to implead the People); (3) whether certiorari was a proper remedy to contest the denial of the motion to quash; and (4) whether violations of Sections 17, 20 and 25 of PD No. 957 are continuing offenses relevant to the perjury charge.

Supreme Court’s Ruling on Prosecutorial Authority and the Information’s Validity

The Court affirmed the CA’s determination that the Amended Information was defective because the prosecution failed to demonstrate prior written authority or a valid written delegation from the City Prosecutor to the assistant prosecutors who purportedly approved or filed the Information. The Court emphasized that the presumption of regularity cannot be applied where the record lacks any showing of such delegation (e.g., absence of the alleged Office Order No. 32), and it relied on established jurisprudence (People v. Garfin, Turingan v. Garfin, Tolentino v. Paqueo, Quisay v. People) holding that an Information filed without the required authorization is jurisdictionally infirm and subject to quashal.

Supreme Court’s Reasoning on Certiorari as an Appropriate Remedy

Although denial of a motion to quash is generally interlocutory and the ordinary remedy is to proceed to trial and raise the issue on appeal from a final judgment, the Court found certiorari appropriate under established exceptions. The Court agreed with the CA that grave abuse of discretion occurred because the denial allowed a defective Information to stand—an infirmity that goes to the court’s very jurisdiction and would expose Villapando to the injuries he sought to avoid (and where requiring him to undergo trial would be self-defeating). Accordingly, resort to certiorari was justified.

Procedural Objections Addressed: Forum Shopping, Impleading the People, Verification

The Court rejected Maximo and Panganiban’s arguments that Villapando’s filings constituted forum shopping because petitions were filed before both the DOJ and the courts; the Court explained that DOJ resolutions are advisory and not binding on the courts, and filing in both fora does not per se constitute forum shopping. The Court also rejected objections about non-impleading of the People and failure to furnish the OSG, noting that the People was represented by the Makati City Prosecution Office in the RTC and by the OSG in the CA and that copies of pleadings were furnished. On

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.

About Privacy Terms