People v. Tecklo
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner State Prosecutor Romulo SJ. Tolentino filed an Information charging private respondent Benedict Dy Tecklo with violation of Republic Act No. 8282 for failing to remit employee premiums to the Social Security System (SSS) despite demand. The Information contained a certification that it was filed with the prior authority and approval of the Regional State Prosecutor. Procedural History: The case was raffled to the RTC of Naga City, Branch 23, presided by respondent Judge Pablo M. Paqueo, Jr. Private respondent filed a Motion to Quash, arguing that State Prosecutor Tolentino lacked the legal personality and authority to file the Information as he was not the City Prosecutor or Provincial Prosecutor. Petitioner opposed, citing his designation as Special Prosecutor for SSS cases, a letter from the Chief State Prosecutor confirming his authority, and the authority of the Regional State Prosecutor to designate special prosecutors. The RTC granted the Motion to Quash, finding that State Prosecutor Tolentino failed to comply with the third paragraph of Section 4, Rule 112 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, which requires prior written approval from the provincial or city prosecutor or chief state prosecutor, none of whom was the Regional State Prosecutor. Petitioner's subsequent Objection and Motion to set aside the order was denied by the RTC. The Petition: Petitioners filed a petition for certiorari and mandamus, alleging that the respondent Judge acted with grave abuse of discretion in issuing the Orders quashing and dismissing the Information.
Issue(s)
Whether respondent Judge Pablo M. Paqueo, Jr. acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in issuing the Orders dated August 24, 2001 and October 15, 2001. Whether petitioner State Prosecutor Tolentino is duly authorized to file the subject Information without the approval of the City Prosecutor.
Ruling
The petition for certiorari and mandamus is DISMISSED for lack of merit. The Supreme Court found that respondent Judge did not gravely abuse his discretion in dismissing the Information.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of whether respondent Judge acted with grave abuse of discretion: The Supreme Court held that the respondent Judge did not gravely abuse his discretion in quashing the Information because the core of the issue lies in the authority of State Prosecutor Tolentino to file the Information without the prior written approval of the City Prosecutor, as mandated by Section 4, paragraph 3, of Rule 112 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure. The Court also found that the private respondent substantially complied with the rules regarding the timing and form of a motion to quash, and no evidence was needed as the lack of authority was apparent on the face of the Information. On the issue of whether State Prosecutor Tolentino was authorized to file the Information without the City Prosecutor's approval: This rule explicitly states that 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. The Court noted that the designation of State Prosecutor Tolentino as a Special Prosecutor by the Regional State Prosecutor, while allowing him to investigate and prosecute SSS cases, did not exempt him from complying with the mandatory requirement of securing the necessary approval for filing the Information. The Regional State Prosecutor is not among the officials enumerated in the rule as having the authority to approve the filing or dismissal of an information. Therefore, the failure to obtain the required approval rendered the filing of the Information defective. The Court further clarified that the letter from the Chief State Prosecutor, which petitioners relied upon, was issued before the effectivity of the 2000 Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure and thus could not override the mandatory provisions of the new rules. The express mention of authorized officials in the rule implies the exclusion of others, following the principle of expressio unius est exclusio alterius. Consequently, the Information was filed by an officer without the proper authority, which is a valid ground for quashing the Information under Section 3(d), Rule 117 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure.
Main Doctrine
A Special Prosecutor designated to handle Social Security System (SSS) cases must still comply with the requirement under Section 4, Rule 112 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure to secure the prior written authority or approval of the provincial or city prosecutor or chief state prosecutor or the Ombudsman or his deputy before filing an information, as the Regional State Prosecutor is not among those authorized to grant such approval.