People v. Apolinar
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: An Information was filed charging Muriel C. Apolinar with violation of Section 22(a) in relation to Sections 19(b) and 28(e) of RA 8282 for non-remittance of social security and employees' compensation premiums and non-payment of penalties for the period January 1997 to December 1998. The Information was signed by State Prosecutor Romulo SJ. Tolentino. Procedural History: Prior to arraignment, Apolinar filed a motion to quash the Information, alleging that State Prosecutor Tolentino lacked the authority to file it. Tolentino opposed, citing his designation as special prosecutor for SSS cases. Respondent Judge Zeida Aurora B. Garfin granted the motion to quash and dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction. A motion for reconsideration was denied. The Petition: Petitioners, Regional State Prosecutor Santiago M. Turingan and State Prosecutor Romulo SJ. Tolentino, filed a petition for certiorari and mandamus seeking to nullify the orders of respondent Judge Garfin.
Issue(s)
Whether respondent Judge erred in granting the motion to quash the Information. Whether State Prosecutor Tolentino had the authority to file the Information for violation of RA 8282.
Ruling
The petition is dismissed. The orders of respondent Judge Zeida Aurora B. Garfin are affirmed.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of whether respondent Judge erred in granting the motion to quash the Information: The Court held that the issue presented in the petition is similar to that in People v. Garfin. In that case, the same State Prosecutor Tolentino filed an Information for violation of RA 8282, which was also dismissed by respondent Judge Garfin for lack of jurisdiction. The Supreme Court, in People v. Garfin, dismissed the petition and declared that the Information was filed by an officer without authority. This infirmity in the Information constitutes a jurisdictional defect that cannot be cured. Therefore, the respondent judge did not err in dismissing the case for lack of jurisdiction. On the issue of whether State Prosecutor Tolentino had the authority to file the Information for violation of RA 8282: The Court reiterated the ruling in People v. Garfin. In the present case, State Prosecutor Tolentino lacked the authority to file the Information because there was neither a directive from the Secretary of Justice designating him as special prosecutor for SSS cases nor the written approval of the Information by the city prosecutor. Consequently, the Information suffered from a jurisdictional defect. As such, respondent Judge Garfin correctly dismissed the case against Apolinar for lack of jurisdiction. The Court found no error in the respondent judge's orders.
Main Doctrine
A motion to quash an Information based on the lack of authority of the filing prosecutor to sign it constitutes a jurisdictional defect that cannot be cured, warranting dismissal of the case.