G.R. No. 150606 ; June 7, 2007
STATE PROSECUTOR ROMULO SJ. TOLENTINO, ET AL., petitioners, vs. HON. PABLO M. PAQUEO, JR., ET AL., respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner State Prosecutor Romulo SJ. Tolentino filed an Information charging private respondent Benedict Dy Tecklo with violation of the Social Security Act for failure to remit employee premiums. The Information included Tolentino’s certification that the investigation was conducted and the filing was with the prior authority of the Regional State Prosecutor. The case was raffled to respondent Judge Pablo M. Paqueo, Jr.’s court. The accused filed a Motion to Quash, arguing that Tolentino, not being the City or Provincial Prosecutor of Naga City, lacked legal authority to file the Information. Tolentino opposed, citing his designation as Special Prosecutor for SSS cases by the Regional State Prosecutor via a Regional Order and a confirming letter from the Chief State Prosecutor.
The Regional Trial Court granted the Motion to Quash and dismissed the case. The court held that the Information was filed in violation of the third paragraph of Section 4, Rule 112 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, which requires that no information may be filed by an investigating prosecutor without the prior written approval of the Provincial or City Prosecutor, Chief State Prosecutor, or the Ombudsman. The court ruled that Tolentino’s designation by the Regional State Prosecutor did not exempt him from this rule, as a Regional State Prosecutor is not among the officers expressly authorized by the Rule to give such approval. The court subsequently denied Tolentino’s motion for reconsideration.

ISSUE

Whether the Regional Trial Court committed grave abuse of discretion in quashing the Information on the ground that State Prosecutor Tolentino lacked authority to file it without the prior written approval of the City Prosecutor of Naga City.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, finding no grave abuse of discretion. The Court explained that the authority to approve the filing of an information is strictly construed under the Rules of Court. Section 4, Rule 112 explicitly states that prior written authority must come from the Provincial or City Prosecutor, Chief State Prosecutor, or the Ombudsman. While the Administrative Code grants the Regional State Prosecutor supervisory functions and the power to designate special prosecutors, this administrative authority does not override the specific procedural mandate of the Rules of Court. The Regional State Prosecutor is not among the officials enumerated in Rule 112. Therefore, Tolentino’s designation and the Regional Order, absent the written approval of the Naga City Prosecutor, were insufficient to comply with the rule. The trial court’s strict adherence to the procedural requirement was a correct interpretation of the law, not an arbitrary or whimsical exercise of judgment. The Court emphasized that the Rules of Court bind all litigants and courts to ensure the orderly administration of justice.