Case Summary (G.R. No. L-20089)
Relevant Dates and Procedural History
- December 28, 2012: OCP-Makati issued a resolution finding probable cause.
- January 11, 2013: Information was filed before the RTC.
- April 12, 2013: Petitioner filed a motion to quash the Information for lack of authority in filing.
- May 8, 2013: RTC denied the motion to quash.
- July 10, 2013: RTC denied petitioner's motion for reconsideration.
- October 10, 2014: Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed RTC’s denial of the motion to quash.
- January 30, 2015: CA denied petitioner's motion for reconsideration.
- January 13, 2016: Supreme Court decision granting the petition.
Applicable Law
- 1987 Philippine Constitution (as decision dated post-1990).
- Section 4, Rule 112 of the 2000 Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure, requiring prior written authority for filing complaints or informations.
- Section 3(d), Rule 117 of the Rules on Criminal Procedure, allowing quashal if the officer who filed the Information lacked authority.
- Republic Act No. 7610 – the substantive law for the offense charged.
- Republic Act No. 10071 ("Prosecution Service Act of 2010"), Section 9, granting City Prosecutor authority and allowing delegation.
- OCP-Makati Office Order No. 32, which delegates authority to review prosecutors to approve resolutions and file informations.
Issue Before the Court
Whether the Court of Appeals correctly affirmed the denial of the motion to quash filed by petitioner on the grounds that the Information was filed without the necessary prior written approval from an authorized prosecutorial officer.
Summary of Facts and Arguments
The OCP-Makati issued a resolution finding probable cause against the petitioner. The resolution was approved by a designated review prosecutor, SACP Hirang. However, the Information filed before the RTC was signed solely by Assistant City Prosecutor De La Cruz, who included a Certification stating that the filing of the Information was with prior written authority of the City Prosecutor. Petitioner argued that the Information was defective as it did not bear the actual prior written approval of the City Prosecutor or any authorized personnel as mandated under the Rules of Court.
The prosecution contended that, pursuant to RA 10071 and the Office Order, approval authority was properly delegated to SACP Hirang and other review prosecutors, and that the Certification attached to the Information sufficiently established prior written approval from the City Prosecutor.
Lower Courts’ Findings
The RTC and the CA held that the Certification in the Information sufficed to meet the requirement of prior written authority. They relied on the delegation under RA 10071 and Office Order No. 32, and accorded the Certification the presumption of regularity in the performance of official functions.
Supreme Court’s Legal Analysis
The Court emphasized the explicit procedural requirements of Section 4, Rule 112 of the Rules of Court, which mandates prior written authority or approval from the provincial/city prosecutor or their deputies before filing an Information. Filing without such authority is a jurisdictional defect that cannot be cured, as established in People v. Garfin, and may be raised at any stage of the proceedings.
The Court acknowledged that Section 9 of RA 10071 validly empowers the City Prosecutor to delegate authority, and OCP-Makati Office Order No. 32 properly designated certain prosecutors, including SACP Hirang, to approve resolutions and filings. The Court found no issue with the delegation per se.
Nevertheless, the critical defect was that the Information was filed by ACP De La Cruz without any demonstrated authority, delegation, or prior written approval by the City Prosecutor or any authorized review prosecutor under the Office Order. The signature-certification alone, stating that prior written authority existed, was insufficient to prove that such authority was indeed granted. This type of certification was likened to those rejected in previous rulings (People v. Garfin, Turingan v. Garfin, Tolentino v. Paqueo), which held that a bare and conclusory certification does not cure the lack of actual prior writ
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. L-20089)
Background and Procedural History
- The case involves petitioner Girlie M. Quisay charged with violation of Section 10 of Republic Act No. 7610 (“Special Protection of Children Against Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination Act”) following a resolution of probable cause issued by the Office of the City Prosecutor of Makati (OCP-Makati) on December 28, 2012.
- An Information (Pabatid Sakdal) was filed on January 11, 2013 before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati, Branch 144, charging petitioner with said violation.
- Petitioner moved to quash the Information on April 12, 2013, alleging a jurisdictional defect due to the lack of prior written authority by the City Prosecutor or any authorized official in filing the Information.
- The RTC denied the motion to quash on May 8, 2013, finding the certification attached to the Information sufficient to comply with authority requirements.
- The motion for reconsideration was likewise denied by the RTC on July 10, 2013.
- Petitioner elevated the case to the Court of Appeals (CA) via petition for certiorari.
- On October 10, 2014, the CA affirmed the RTC ruling denying the motion to quash, upholding the authorization and presumption of regularity of the filing.
- Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was denied by the CA on January 30, 2015.
- Petitioner then filed the present petition for review on certiorari before the Supreme Court.
Issues Presented
- The crucial legal question is whether the CA correctly affirmed the RTC’s denial of petitioner’s motion to quash the Information due to alleged lack of authority of the officer who filed the Information.
- Specifically, the Court examined if the filing of the Information without prior written authority from the City Prosecutor or duly authorized assistant prosecutors constituted a jurisdictional defect necessitating quashal.
Facts
- The Pasiya (resolution finding probable cause) was prepared by Assistant City Prosecutor Estefano H. De La Cruz and approved by Senior Assistant City Prosecutor Edgardo G. Hirang.
- The Information (Pabatid Sakdal) was penned and filed by ACP De La Cruz without express written approval from either the City Prosecutor or a designated authorized official, albeit containing a certification claiming prior written authority existed.
- The OCP-Makati countered that SACP Hirang was authorized by delegation (through RA 10071 Section 9 and OCP-Makati Office Order No. 32) to approve resolutions and that the Certification on the Information confirmed prior written approval from the City Pro