People v. Arrojado
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Respondent Jesus A. Arrojado was charged with murder in an Information dated March 23, 2009, filed by the Office of the City Prosecutor of Roxas City. The case was docketed as Criminal Case No. C-75-09 and raffled to the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Roxas City, Branch 16. Procedural History: On June 16, 2009, respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss the Information, arguing that the investigating prosecutor failed to indicate her Mandatory Continuing Legal Education (MCLE) Certificate of Compliance number and date of issue, as required by Bar Matter No. 1922. The prosecution opposed, contending the Information was sufficient, the defect was formal, and an administrative edict should not prevail over substantive law. On July 2, 2009, the RTC dismissed the Information without prejudice. The RTC denied the prosecution's Motion for Reconsideration on July 23, 2009. The Court of Appeals (CA) denied the prosecution's petition for certiorari and/or mandamus, affirming the RTC's Orders. The CA subsequently denied the Motion for Reconsideration. The Petition: The People of the Philippines, represented by the Office of the City Prosecutor, filed a petition for review on certiorari with the Supreme Court, assailing the CA's decision and resolution. The sole assignment of error was whether the CA erred in ruling that the failure to indicate the MCLE compliance number and date of issuance warranted the dismissal of the Information.
Issue(s)
Whether the failure of the investigating prosecutor to indicate her MCLE compliance number and date of issuance in the Information warrants its dismissal. Whether the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the Information without prejudice. Whether the CA erred in affirming the RTC's dismissal of the Information.
Ruling
The petition is denied. The Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals, dated September 8, 2011 and April 18, 2013, respectively, in CA-G.R. SP No. 04540 are affirmed.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of whether the failure to indicate MCLE compliance warrants dismissal: The Court reiterated that Bar Matter No. 1922 requires practicing members of the bar to indicate in all pleadings filed before the courts or quasi-judicial bodies the number and date of issue of their MCLE Certificate of Compliance or Exemption. The rule explicitly states that failure to disclose the required information would cause the dismissal of the case and the expunction of the pleadings from the records. An Information, being a written statement charging a person with an offense and filed with the court, is considered a pleading under the Rules of Court. Therefore, the investigating prosecutor's failure to comply with the mandate of Bar Matter No. 1922 was a direct violation of the Court's directive. The Court noted that the rule took effect on January 1, 2009, and the Information was filed on March 23, 2009, making compliance mandatory at the time. On the issue of grave abuse of discretion and the dismissal without prejudice: The Court held that the RTC did not commit grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the Information without prejudice. A writ of certiorari is directed against a tribunal that acted without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion, which means a capricious or whimsical exercise of judgment equivalent to lack of jurisdiction. Since the RTC's dismissal was based on a clear and categorical provision of a Supreme Court rule (Bar Matter No. 1922), it could not be considered arbitrary or despotic. Furthermore, the dismissal was "without prejudice," meaning it did not preclude the prosecution from re-filing the case after complying with the required MCLE disclosure. This afforded the prosecution a plain, speedy, and adequate remedy. On the issue of the CA's affirmation of the RTC's dismissal: The Court found no error in the CA's affirmation of the RTC's Orders. The prosecution's contention that the dismissal prejudiced the State's interest was deemed unfounded because the "without prejudice" dismissal allowed for re-filing. The Court suggested that instead of filing various petitions, the prosecution should have simply re-filed the Information with the required MCLE details. The Court also rejected the argument for liberal construction of procedural rules, as there was no reasonable attempt at compliance shown by the prosecution, even in their motion for reconsideration. The Court pointed out that a subsequent amendment to Bar Matter No. 1922 (effective January 14, 2014) removed the automatic dismissal provision, replacing it with administrative sanctions for the counsel. However, this amendment was not yet in effect at the time the Information was filed. Nevertheless, the Court reiterated that the most prudent action for the trial court would have been to require compliance rather than dismiss the case outright, to avoid delay.
Main Doctrine
The failure of a prosecutor to indicate the MCLE compliance number and date of issue in a criminal Information, while a violation of Bar Matter No. 1922, does not automatically warrant the dismissal of the Information if it is otherwise sufficient in form and substance. Such dismissal should be without prejudice, allowing for re-filing, and the proper recourse for the prosecutor is to comply with the requirement or face administrative sanctions, not to pursue a petition for certiorari against a dismissal without prejudice.