G.R. No. 216920, January 13, 2016
Girlie M. Quisay, Petitioner, vs. People of the Philippines, Respondent.

FACTS

On December 28, 2012, the Office of the City Prosecutor of Makati City (OCP-Makati) issued a Resolution (Pasiya) finding probable cause against petitioner Girlie M. Quisay for violation of Section 10 of Republic Act No. 7610. An Information (Pabatid Sakdal) was filed before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati on January 11, 2013. The Resolution was penned by Assistant City Prosecutor Estefano H. De La Cruz and approved by Senior Assistant City Prosecutor Edgardo G. Hirang. The Information was penned by ACP De La Cruz and contained a Certification stating that its filing was with the prior written authority or approval of the City Prosecutor, but it bore no signature or approval from the City Prosecutor or any review prosecutor. Petitioner moved to quash the Information on the ground that the officer who filed it lacked authority, pointing out that neither the Resolution nor the Information showed that ACP De La Cruz or SACP Hirang had prior written authority from the City Prosecutor to file or approve the Information. The RTC denied the motion, finding the Certification sufficient. The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC, ruling that the City Prosecutor could delegate authority under Section 9 of R.A. No. 10071 and OCP-Makati Office Order No. 32, and that the Certification enjoyed a presumption of regularity.

ISSUE

Whether or not the Court of Appeals correctly held that the RTC did not gravely abuse its discretion in dismissing petitioner’s motion to quash the Information, which was filed without the prior written authority or approval of the City Prosecutor or an authorized officer as required by Section 4, Rule 112 of the 2000 Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure.

RULING

No. The petition is meritorious. The Supreme Court reversed the CA Decision and Resolution and granted the Motion to Quash. Section 4, Rule 112 of the Rules of Court mandates that no information may be filed without the prior written authority or approval of the provincial or city prosecutor, chief state prosecutor, or the Ombudsman or his deputy. The filing of an information by an officer without such requisite authority constitutes a jurisdictional defect that cannot be cured by waiver and is a ground for quashal under Section 3(d), Rule 117. While the City Prosecutor may delegate authority to approve resolutions and file informations under R.A. No. 10071 and Office Order No. 32 (which designated SACP Hirang as a review prosecutor), the Information in this case was defective. The Resolution finding probable cause was validly approved by SACP Hirang, a designated review prosecutor. However, the Information itself, filed by ACP De La Cruz, only contained his Certification claiming prior written authority from the City Prosecutor but was not signed or approved by the City Prosecutor or any authorized review prosecutor. The Court, citing People v. Garfin, Turingan v. Garfin, and Tolentino v. Paqueo, held that such a certification, without more, is insufficient to prove compliance with the rule. Since the Information was filed without the required prior written authority or approval, it was jurisdictionally defective and must be quashed.