GR 153176; (March, 2004) (Digest)
G.R. No. 153176 ; March 29, 2004
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, vs. HON. ZEIDA AURORA B. GARFIN, In her capacity as Presiding Judge of RTC, Branch 19, of the City of Naga and SERAFIN SABALLEGUE, respondents.
FACTS
State Prosecutor Romulo SJ. Tolentino filed an Information against Serafin Saballegue for violation of the Social Security Act. The information contained a certification that its filing was with the prior authority and approval of the Regional State Prosecutor. The case was raffled to the Regional Trial Court of Naga City, Branch 19, presided by Judge Zeida Aurora B. Garfin. The accused pleaded not guilty during his arraignment.
Subsequently, the accused filed a Motion to Dismiss, arguing that the Information was filed without the prior written authority or approval of the City Prosecutor of Naga, as expressly required by Section 4, Rule 112 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure. The prosecution opposed, contending that the State Prosecutor, duly designated to handle SSS cases, had the requisite authority from the Regional State Prosecutor. The trial court granted the motion and dismissed the case, ruling that the lack of the City Prosecutor’s approval was a jurisdictional defect that could be raised at any time, even after a plea.
ISSUE
Whether the trial court acted with grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the criminal information on the ground that it was filed without the prior written authority of the City Prosecutor, despite the accused having already entered a plea.
RULING
The Supreme Court ruled in the negative and upheld the trial court’s dismissal. The legal logic is anchored on jurisdiction and the mandatory nature of procedural rules governing the filing of informations. Under Section 4, Rule 112, the prior written authority or approval of the provincial or city prosecutor, chief state prosecutor, or the Ombudsman is a mandatory requirement for the valid filing of an information by an investigating prosecutor. This requirement is not a mere technicality but is integral to the court’s acquisition of jurisdiction over the case.
The Court clarified that a valid information, filed by a competent officer, is a jurisdictional requisite. The certification in the information referred only to the approval of the Regional State Prosecutor, not the City Prosecutor of Naga where the case was filed. The authority of a Regional State Prosecutor is concurrent with, not superior to, that of a City Prosecutor within the latter’s territorial jurisdiction. The absence of the City Prosecutor’s approval rendered the information invalid. This defect is jurisdictional and, therefore, can be questioned at any stage of the proceedings, even after the accused has pleaded. The plea does not constitute a waiver of an objection based on lack of jurisdiction. Consequently, the trial court did not commit grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the case for lack of jurisdiction.