Quisay v. People
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The Office of the City Prosecutor of Makati City (OCP-Makati) issued a Resolution finding probable cause against petitioner Girlie M. Quisay for violation of Section 10 of Republic Act No. (RA) 7610. Consequently, an Information was filed before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati, Branch 144, charging petitioner with the said crime. Procedural History: Petitioner moved to quash the Information, arguing that the person who filed it lacked the authority. She contended that while the Resolution was approved by Senior Assistant City Prosecutor (SACP) Edgardo G. Hirang, the Information was filed by Assistant City Prosecutor (ACP) Estefano H. De La Cruz without any apparent approval from higher authority, despite a certification claiming prior written authority. The RTC denied the motion, finding the certification sufficient compliance with Section 4, Rule 112 of the Rules of Court. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the RTC's ruling, citing Section 9 of RA 10071 and OCP-Makati Office Order No. 32, which allegedly authorized SACP Hirang to approve the filing of Informations, and upholding the presumption of regularity for the certification. The Petition: Petitioner filed a petition for review on certiorari before the Supreme Court, assailing the CA's decision and resolution.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals correctly held that the RTC did not gravely abuse its discretion in dismissing petitioner's motion to quash, considering the alleged defect in the Information. Whether the Information filed against the petitioner was defective due to the alleged lack of authority of the filing officer.
Ruling
The petition is meritorious. The Court reversed and set aside the Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals, quashed the Information against petitioner Girlie M. Quisay, and dismissed the criminal case against her.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of the validity of the Information and the dismissal of the motion to quash: The Court held that the Information filed against petitioner was defective and subject to quashal. Section 4, Rule 112 of the 2000 Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure explicitly states that no complaint or information may be filed without the prior written authority or approval of the provincial or city prosecutor or chief state prosecutor, or the Ombudsman or his deputy. The filing of an Information by an officer without the requisite authority constitutes a jurisdictional infirmity, as firmly established in People v. Garfin. This infirmity cannot be cured by silence, waiver, acquiescence, or even by express consent, and may be raised at any stage of the proceedings. In this case, while the Resolution finding probable cause was validly approved by SACP Hirang, a designated review prosecutor, the Information itself lacked a showing of approval by the City Prosecutor or any of the authorized review prosecutors. The Certification from ACP De La Cruz, stating that the filing was with the prior authority of the City Prosecutor, was deemed insufficient and self-serving, especially in the absence of any proof that ACP De La Cruz himself was authorized to file the Information or that he sought prior written approval from those authorized to do so. The CA erred in according the Information the presumption of regularity solely based on this certification, given the lack of evidence supporting ACP De La Cruz's authority to file the Information independently. Therefore, the CA erred in affirming the RTC's dismissal of the motion to quash because the Information suffered from an incurable defect: the officer who filed it lacked the authority to do so. On the issue of the defect in the Information due to lack of authority: The Court found the Information defective because it was filed without the requisite authority, as per Section 4, Rule 112 of the 2000 Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure and the precedent set in People v. Garfin. The absence of prior written authority or approval from the City Prosecutor or authorized review prosecutors when filing the Information constitutes a jurisdictional infirmity that cannot be waived. The Certification from ACP De La Cruz was insufficient to establish the necessary authority, leading the Court to conclude that the Information suffered from an incurable defect.
Main Doctrine
An Information filed by an officer without the requisite authority to file the same constitutes a jurisdictional infirmity which cannot be cured by silence, waiver, acquiescence, or even by express consent, and may be raised at any stage of the proceedings.