Case Summary (G.R. No. 216920)
Key Dates and Procedural Milestones
December 28, 2012 — OCP‑Makati issued a Pasiya (Resolution) finding probable cause.
January 11, 2013 — Pabatid Sakdal (Information) filed in the RTC.
April 12, 2013 — Petitioner moved to quash the Information for lack of authority of the filing officer.
May 8, 2013 — RTC denied the motion to quash.
July 10, 2013 — RTC denied reconsideration.
October 10, 2014 — Court of Appeals affirmed RTC decision.
January 30, 2015 — CA denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration.
Supreme Court decision (First Division) — petition for review granted; Information quashed and case dismissed.
Applicable Law and Authorities
Constitutional framework: 1987 Philippine Constitution (applicable given the decision date).
Statutory and procedural rules: Section 4, Rule 112, 2000 Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure (requirement of prior written authority or approval of provincial/city prosecutor, etc., before filing an information); Rule 117, Section 3(d) (motion to quash ground: officer who filed the information had no authority); Republic Act No. 10071 (Prosecution Service Act of 2010), Section 9 (powers and functions of city/provincial prosecutor, including delegation); Republic Act No. 7610 (offense charged: Section 10).
Administrative issuances: OCP‑Makati Office Order No. 32 (delegation of authority to division chiefs/review prosecutors to approve resolutions and filings).
Precedents cited in the decision: People v. Garfin; Turingan v. Garfin; Tolentino v. Paqueo.
Factual Background
After a preliminary investigation, ACP De La Cruz prepared a Pasiya finding probable cause; the Pasiya bore the approval signature of SACP Hirang. ACP De La Cruz then filed the Pabatid Sakdal (Information) in the RTC, attaching a Certification asserting that the filing was made with prior written authority or approval of the City Prosecutor. Petitioner moved to quash the Information on the ground that ACP De La Cruz lacked authority to file it in court and there was no showing of the required prior written approval by the City Prosecutor or any authorized officer.
RTC Proceedings and Ruling
The RTC denied the motion to quash, finding that the Certification attached to the Information sufficiently complied with Section 4, Rule 112 requiring prior written authority or approval by the appropriate prosecutorial officer. Reconsideration was likewise denied by the RTC.
Court of Appeals Ruling
The CA affirmed the RTC, reasoning that (1) Section 9 of RA 10071 allows the City Prosecutor to delegate prosecutorial powers and, under OCP‑Makati Office Order No. 32, review prosecutors (including SACP Hirang) were authorized to approve resolutions finding probable cause and the filing of informations; and (2) the Certification in the Information that it was filed with the prior written authority of the City Prosecutor enjoyed the presumption of regularity in official acts absent convincing evidence to the contrary.
Issue Before the Supreme Court
Whether the Court of Appeals correctly held that the RTC did not gravely abuse its discretion in denying petitioner’s motion to quash the Information filed by ACP De La Cruz.
Supreme Court Analysis
The Court reiterated the mandatory nature of Section 4, Rule 112: no complaint or information may be filed by an investigating prosecutor without the prior written authority or approval of the provincial or city prosecutor (or other enumerated officials). A filing lacking such prior written approval constitutes a jurisdictional defect, cognizable in a motion to quash under Rule 117, Section 3(d), and is not cured by silence, waiver, acquiescence, or consent, as held in People v. Garfin and related authorities.
The Supreme Court accepted that, by statutory grant (RA 10071, Section 9), a City Prosecutor may delegate authority to designated subordinates and that OCP‑Makati Office Order No. 32 validly designated certain review prosecutors (including SACP Hirang) with authority to approve resolutions and filings. Accordingly, the Court found the Pasiya validly approved because it bore SACP Hirang’s signature as a designated review prosecutor.
However, the Court distinguished the Pasiya from the Information actually filed in court. The Pabatid Sakdal itself contained only a Certification by ACP De La Cruz asserting that the filing was with prior written authority of the City Prosecutor, but there was no documentary evidence showing that the Information had been approved in writing by the City Prosecutor or any officer authorized under Office Order No. 32, nor any evidence that ACP De La Cruz had written authorization to file informations in court on his own. The Court noted precedents where formally similar certifications were rejected as insufficient proof of authority (People v. Garfin; Turingan v. Garfin; Tolentino v. Paqueo). In the absence of any independent proof that ACP De La Cruz possessed the requisite authority or had obtained prior written approval from an authorized officer, the presumption of regularity could not be invoked to cure the jurisdictional defect.
The Court also emphasized the inconsistency that the Pasiya bore the review prosecutor’s approval while the Informat
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 216920)
Court, Citation, and Date
- Supreme Court of the Philippines, First Division.
- G.R. No. 216920.
- Reported at 778 Phil. 481.
- Decision rendered January 13, 2016.
- Decision penned by Associate Justice Perlas-Bernabe, J.
Parties
- Petitioner: Girlie M. Quisay.
- Respondent: People of the Philippines.
Nature of Case and Relief Sought
- Petition for review on certiorari seeking reversal of Court of Appeals Decision dated October 10, 2014 and Resolution dated January 30, 2015 in CA-G.R. SP No. 131968.
- Relief sought: grant of petition to quash the Information filed against petitioner for violation of Section 10 of Republic Act No. 7610 and dismissal of the criminal case for lack of authority in filing the Information.
Lower Court Proceedings and Key Documents Issued
- December 28, 2012: Office of the City Prosecutor of Makati City (OCP-Makati) issued a Pasiya (Resolution) finding probable cause against petitioner for violation of Section 10 of RA 7610. The Pasiya was penned by Assistant City Prosecutor Estefano H. De La Cruz and approved by Senior Assistant City Prosecutor Edgardo G. Hirang. [4]
- January 11, 2013: A Pabatid Sakdal (Information) was filed before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati, Branch 144, signed/penned by ACP Estefano H. De La Cruz. [6]
- April 12, 2013: Petitioner filed a Motion to Quash the Information alleging lack of authority of the person who filed the Information before the RTC. [7]
- OCP-Makati filed Comment and Opposition to the Motion to Quash. [8]
- May 8, 2013: RTC denied the Motion to Quash by Order (Presiding Judge Liza Marie R. Picardal-Tecson). [11]
- July 10, 2013: RTC denied Petitioner's motion for reconsideration by Order. [14]
- Petitioner elevated the matter to the Court of Appeals via petition for certiorari. [15]
- October 10, 2014: Court of Appeals issued Decision affirming the RTC's denial of the Motion to Quash in CA-G.R. SP No. 131968. [16]
- November 18, 2014: Petitioner moved for reconsideration before the Court of Appeals. [20]
- January 30, 2015: Court of Appeals denied reconsideration by Resolution. [21]
- Petitioner filed the present petition for review on certiorari with the Supreme Court. [1]
Facts as Presented
- The OCP-Makati prepared a Pasiya finding probable cause penned by ACP De La Cruz and approved by SACP Hirang. [4]
- The Pabatid Sakdal (Information) filed in the RTC was penned by ACP De La Cruz and contained a Certification claiming that ACP De La Cruz had prior written authority or approval from the City Prosecutor to file the Information. [6], [10]
- Petitioner asserted that neither the Pasiya nor the Pabatid Sakdal showed actual prior written authority or approval by the City Prosecutor for ACP De La Cruz (or SACP Hirang) to file or approve the Information, rendering the Information jurisdictionally defective and subject to quashal. [7]
Petitioner's Grounds in Motion to Quash
- The officer who filed the Information (ACP Estefano H. De La Cruz) lacked authority to file the Information before the RTC.
- The Pasiya and Pabatid Sakdal did not show prior written authority or approval from the City Prosecutor; the Pabatid Sakdal only contained a Certification by ACP De La Cruz asserting prior written authority, which petitioner argued was insufficient and self-serving. [7], [28]
OCP-Makati's Position in Opposition
- OCP-Makati contended that SACP Hirang, as review prosecutor, was authorized to approve the Pasiya pursuant to OCP-Makati Office Order No. 32. [9]
- OCP-Makati asserted that the Pabatid Sakdal was filed with the prior approval of the City Prosecutor, as shown by the Certification contained in the Information itself. [10]
RTC Ruling (May 8, 2013 Order and July 10, 2013 Denial of Reconsideration)
- The RTC denied petitioner's Motion to Quash for lack of merit. [11]
- The RTC found that the Certification attached to the Pabatid Sakdal sufficiently complied with Section 4, Rule 112 of the Rules of Court requiring prior written authority or approval by the named officers before filing Informations. [12]
- Petitioner's motion for reconsideration was denied by the RTC. [13], [14]
Court of Appeals Ruling (Decision dated October 10, 2014; Resolution dated January 30, 2015)
- The CA affirmed the RTC ruling. [16], [21]
- 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 of Makati may authorize SACP Hirang to approve resolutions finding probable cause and the filing of Informations before the courts. Thus, SACP Hirang could, on behalf of the City Prosecutor, approve the Pasiya finding probable cause against petitioner. [17], [18], [25]
- The Certification by ACP De La Cruz in the Pabatid Sakdal indicated that the Information was filed after preliminary investigation and with the prior written authority or approval of the City Prosecutor; such Certif