Quisay v. People (2016)
Certification made by ACP Dela Cruz clearly indicated that it was filed
Petition: Review on Certiorari
Petitioner: Girlie Quisay
Respondent: People of the Philippines
Ponencia: Perlas-Bernabe, J.
DOCTRINE:
Complaints and Informations filed without prior written authority or approval of the said
officers redenders the same defective and subject to quashal.
PROVISION:
Section 4, Rule 112:
Xxx
No complaint or information may be filed or dismissed by an
investigating prosecutor without the prior written authority or
approval of the provincial or city prosecutor or chief state prosecutor or the Ombudsman or his
deputy.
FACTS:
1. On December 28, 2012, the Office of the City Prosecutor of Makati (OCP-
Makati) issued a Pasiya or Resolution finding probable cause against
Petitioner Quisay for violation of Section 10, R.A. 7610 (Special Protection of
Children against Abuse, Exploitation, and Discrimination Act).
2. A Pabatid Sakdal or Information was filed on January 11, 2013 charging
petitioner of said crime
3. Petitioner moved to quash the Information on the following ground of lack of
authority of person who filed:
a. Pasiya was penned by Assistant City Prosecutor De La Cruz,
approved by Senior Assistant City Prosecutor Hirang
b. BUT the Pabatid Sakdal, pened by ACP De La Cruz, without any
approval from any higher authority or the City Prosecutor.
c. Nothing shows a prior written authority or approval was given by the
City prosecutor to file or approve the filing of information.
4. OCP-Makati ountered that the review prosecutor, SACP Hirang authorized to
approve Pasiya. The Pabatid Sakdal was filed with the prior approval of the
CP as shown in the Certification in the Information
COURT PROCEEDINGS:
1. RTC: Denied motion to quash for lack of merit
a. Certification attached to the Information was sufficient compliance to
Section 4, Rule 112 of the Rules requiring prior written authority or
approval by the City Prosecutor in filing of Informations.
b. MR: Denied.
2. Court of Appeals: Affirmed
a. Pursuant to Section 9 of the Prosecution Service Act of 2010 and
OCP-Makati Office Order No. 32, the CP of Makati authorized SACP
Hirang to approve
i. issuance of resolutions finding probable cause and
ii. filing of Informations
b.
after preliminary investigation and with prior written authority or
approval of CP.
i. The certification enjoys presumption of regularity
c. MR: Denied
3. Hence this petition.
ISSUE: W/N the motion for quashal of information should be granted– YES.
RULING + RATIO:
1. Section 4, Rule 112 of the 2000 Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure states
that the filing of a complaint or information requires a prior written authority
or approval of the named officers therein before a complaint or
information may be filed before the courts.
a. No complaint or information may be filed or dismissed by an
investigating prosecutor without the prior written authority or
approval of the provincial or city prosecutor or chief state
prosecutor or the Ombudsman or his deputy.
2. General Rule: Complaints and Informations filed without prior written authority
or approval of the said officers redenders the same defective and subject to
quashal:
a. Section 3(d), Rule 117 (Grounds for quasha)- That the officer who
filed has no authority to do so.
3. People v. Garfin: Filing of an Information without the requisite authority to file
constitutes a jurisdictional infirmity which cannot be cured by silence,
waiver, acquiescence or express consent.
a. Such ground may be raised at any stage of proceedings.
4. CA correctly held that CP has the power to delegate his power to his
subordinates as he may deem necessary. Hence the Resolution finding
probable cause was validly made as it bore the signature of SACP Hirang
a. BUT the same could not be said about the Information as there was
no showng that it was approved by either CP or OCP-Makati
Division Chiefs or review prosecutors.
5. The Certification from ACP De La Cruz which translates to “and that the filing
of the Information is with the prior authority and approval of the City
Prosecutor” is not sufficient compliance to the Rules.
a. Jurisprudence has previously rejected similarly worded certifications.
b. They are defective and failed to show that they obtained prior written
authority
c. Aside from this Certification there was no other proof that ACP De La
Cruz was authorized.
DISPOSITION: Petition is GRANTED.