GR 153284; (April, 2007) (Digest)
G.R. No. 153284; April 17, 2007
REGIONAL STATE PROSECUTOR SANTIAGO M. TURINGAN, et al., Petitioners, vs. HON. ZEIDA AURORA B. GARFIN, et al., Respondents.
FACTS
State Prosecutor Romulo SJ. Tolentino filed an Information against private respondent Muriel C. Apolinar for violation of the Social Security Act of 1997 (R.A. 8282) for non-remittance of SSS premiums. The Information and the accompanying certification, which stated that the filing was with the prior authority of the Regional State Prosecutor, were signed by Tolentino. He claimed authority under a Regional Order designating him as special prosecutor for SSS cases in Region V.
Prior to arraignment, Apolinar moved to quash the Information, arguing that Tolentino lacked the authority to sign and file it. The respondent Judge granted the motion to quash and subsequently denied the prosecution’s motion for reconsideration. The prosecution thus filed this petition for certiorari and mandamus to nullify the trial court’s orders.
ISSUE
Whether or not State Prosecutor Tolentino had the requisite authority to file the Information for violation of R.A. 8282, thereby vesting the trial court with jurisdiction over the criminal case.
RULING
The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, upholding the trial court’s dismissal of the case for lack of jurisdiction. The Court applied its prior ruling in People v. Garfin, which involved the same state prosecutor and an identical legal issue. The legal logic is grounded on the rules governing the authority to initiate criminal prosecutions.
Under the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, an information must be filed by the proper prosecutor. For cases falling under the jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Court, the authority to file the information is vested in the provincial or city prosecutor, or the Ombudsman for certain cases. A state prosecutor may only file an information upon a specific directive from the Secretary of Justice or with the prior written approval of the provincial or city prosecutor. In this case, neither condition was met. The Regional Order cited by Tolentino was issued by a Regional State Prosecutor, who only possesses powers of administrative supervision and cannot confer the substantive authority to file an information that is reserved to the Secretary of Justice or the local prosecutor. Consequently, the Information was filed by an officer without legal authority.
This infirmity constitutes a jurisdictional defect, as the court acquires jurisdiction over a criminal case only upon the filing of a valid information by a competent officer. Since the information was invalid from its inception, the defect could not be cured, and the trial court correctly dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction.