l\epublic of tbe !

lbilippines

$upreme <!Court
:ffH[anila
FIRST DIVISION
GIRLIE M. QUISAY,

e:;;r.:.i{~~~~fimF:-;1

;;:7'1.fi1~!'LE1rw.~Jf;'\f,.

,w:
.'
~~\.~~wITl~-Cj
~
Jt,.
)..tif"I
/i.JJ jt FEB 01 201
I~~\ II ,

..,..,.._
~-=-

JJ'' '"'

-.

G.R. No. 216920

Petitioner,
Present:

- versus -

PEOPLE
OF
PHILIPPINES,

THE
Respondent.

SERENO, CJ., Chairperson,

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO,
BERSAMIN,
PEREZ, and
PERLAS-BERNABE, JJ.
Promulgated:

JAN 13 2om

x-----------------------------------------------------------~-:-~----------x
DECISION
PERLAS-BERNABE, J.:
Assailed in this petition for review on certiorari 1 are the Decision 2
dated October 10, 2014 and the Resolution3 dated January 30, 2015 of the
Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 131968, which affirmed the
denial of petitioner Girlie M. Quisay's (petitioner) Motion to Quash before
the Regional Trial Court ofMakati, Branch 144 (RTC).
The Facts
On December 28, 2012, the Office of the City Prosecutor of Makati
City (OCP-Makati) issued a Pasiya 4 or Resolution finding probable cause

Rollo, pp. 23-41.

Id. at 126-134. Penned by Associate Justice Rebecca De Guia-Salvador with Associate Justices
Ricardo R. Rosario and Leoncia R. Dimagiba concurring.
Id. at 149-150.
Id. at 69-71. Penned by Assistant City Prosecutor Estefano H. De La Cruz and approved by Senior
Assistant City Prosecutor Edgardo G. Hirang.

Decision

G.R. No. 216920

against petitioner for violation of Section 10 of Republic Act No. (RA)

7610, 5 otherwise known as the Special Protection of Children Against
Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination Act. Consequently, a Pabatid
Sakdal 6 or Information was filed before the RTC on January 11, 2013
charging petitioner of such crime.
On April 12, 2013, petitioner moved for the quashal of the
Information against her on the ground of lack of authority of the person who
filed the same before the RTC. In support of her motion, petitioner pointed
out that the Pasiya issued by the OCP-Makati was penned by Assistant City
Prosecutor Estefano H. De La Cruz (ACP De La Cruz) and approved by
Senior Assistant City Prosecutor Edgardo G. Hirang (SACP Hirang), while
the Pabatid Sakdal was penned by ACP De La Cruz, without any approval
from any higher authority, albeit with a Certification claiming that ACP De
La Cruz has prior written authority or approval from the City Prosecutor in
filing the said Information. In this regard, petitioner claimed that nothing in
the aforesaid Pasiya and Pabatid Sakdal would show that ACP De La Cruz
and/or SACP Hirang had prior written authority or approval from the City
Prosecutor to file or approve the filing of the Information against her. As
such, the Information must be quashed for being tainted with a jurisdictional
defect that cannot be cured.7
In its Comment and Opposition,8 the OCP-Makati countered that the
review prosecutor, SACP Hirang, was authorized to approve the Pasiya
pursuant to OCP-Makati Office Order No. 32.9 Further, it maintained that
the Pabatid Sakdal was filed with the prior approval of the City Prosecutor
as shown in the Certification in the Information itself.10
The RTC Ruling
In an Order11 dated May 8, 2013, the RTC denied petitioners motion
to quash for lack of merit. It found the Certification attached to the Pabatid
Sakdal to have sufficiently complied with Section 4, Rule 112 of the Rules
of Court which requires the prior written authority or approval by, among
others, the City Prosecutor, in the filing of Informations.12

6
7
8
9
10
11
12

Entitled AN ACT PROVIDING FOR STRONGER DETERRENCE AND SPECIAL PROTECTION AGAINST CHILD
ABUSE, EXPLOITATION AND DISCRIMINATION, PROVIDING PENALTIES FOR ITS VIOLATION, AND FOR
OTHER PURPOSES (approved on June 17, 1992).
Rollo, pp. 72-73. Signed by Assistant City Prosecutor Estefano H. De La Cruz.
See Motion to Quash dated April 12, 2013; id. at 74-76.
Id. at 77.
Issued on July 29, 2011. Id. at 78.
Id. at 77.
Id. at 79. Penned by Presiding Judge Liza Marie R. Picardal-Tecson.
Id.

Decision

G.R. No. 216920

Petitioner moved for reconsideration,13 which was, however, denied in

an Order14 dated July 10, 2013. Aggrieved, petitioner elevated the matter to
the CA via a petition for certiorari.15
The CA Ruling
In a Decision 16 dated October 10, 2014, the CA affirmed the RTC
ruling. It held that pursuant to Section 9 of RA 10071,17 otherwise known as
the Prosecution Service Act of 2010, as well as OCP-Makati Office Order
No. 32, the City Prosecutor of Makati authorized SACP Hirang to approve
the issuance of, inter alia, resolutions finding probable cause and the filing
of Informations before the courts. As such, SACP Hirang may, on behalf of
the City Prosecutor, approve the Pasiya which found probable cause to
indict petitioner of violation of Section 10 of RA 7610. 18
Further, it held that the Certification made by ACP De La Cruz in the
Pabatid Sakdal clearly indicated that the same was filed after the requisite
preliminary investigation and with the prior written authority or approval of
the City Prosecutor. In this regard, the CA opined that such Certification
enjoys the presumption of regularity accorded to a public officers
performance of official functions, in the absence of convincing evidence to
the contrary.19
Undaunted, petitioner moved for reconsideration,20 but was denied in
a Resolution21 dated January 30, 2015; hence, this petition.
The Issue Before the Court
The core issue for the Courts resolution is whether or not the CA
correctly held that the RTC did not gravely abuse its discretion in dismissing
petitioners motion to quash.
The Courts Ruling
The petition is meritorious.

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21

See motion for reconsideration dated May 20, 2013; id. at 80-81.
Id. at 82.
Id. at 47-65.
Id. at 126-134.
Entitled AN ACT STRENGTHENING AND RATIONALIZING THE NATIONAL PROSECUTION SERVICE
(approved on April 8, 2010).
Id. at 128-131.
Id. at 132-133.
See motion for reconsideration dated November 18, 2014; id. at 135-143.
Id. at 149-150.

Decision

G.R. No. 216920

Section 4, Rule 112 of the 2000 Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure

states that the filing of a complaint or information requires a prior written
authority or approval of the named officers therein before a complaint or
information may be filed before the courts, viz.:
SECTION 4. Resolution of investigating prosecutor and its review.
If the investigating prosecutor finds cause to hold the respondent for
trial, he shall prepare the resolution and information. He shall certify
under oath in the information that he, or as shown by the record, an
authorized officer, has personally examined the complainant and his
witnesses; that there is reasonable ground to believe that a crime has been
committed and that the accused is probably guilty thereof; that the accused
was informed of the complaint and of the evidence submitted against him;
and that he was given an opportunity to submit controverting evidence.
Otherwise, he shall recommend the dismissal of the complaint.
Within five (5) days from his resolution, he shall forward the
record of the case to the provincial or city prosecutor or chief state
prosecutor, or to the Ombudsman or his deputy in cases of offenses
cognizable by the Sandiganbayan in the exercise of its original
jurisdiction. They shall act on the resolution within ten (10) days from
their receipt thereof and shall immediately inform the parties of such
action.
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.
x x x x (Emphases and underscoring supplied)

Thus, as a general rule, complaints or informations filed before the

courts without the prior written authority or approval of the foregoing
authorized officers renders the same defective and, therefore, subject to
quashal pursuant to Section 3 (d), Rule 117 of the same Rules, to wit:
SECTION 3. Grounds. The accused may move to quash the
complaint or information on any of the following grounds:
xxxx
(d)
That the officer who filed the information had no
authority to do so;
x x x x (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)

In this relation, People v. Garfin22 firmly instructs that the filing of an

Information by an officer without the requisite authority to file the same
constitutes a jurisdictional infirmity which cannot be cured by silence,

22

G.R. No. 153176, March 29, 2004, 426 SCRA 393.

Decision

G.R. No. 216920

waiver, acquiescence, or even by express consent. Hence, such ground may

be raised at any stage of the proceedings.23
In the case at bar, the CA affirmed the denial of petitioners motion to
quash on the grounds that: (a) the City Prosecutor of Makati may delegate its
authority to approve the filing of the Pabatid Sakdal pursuant to Section 9 of
RA 10071, as well as OCP-Makati Office Order No. 32; and (b) the Pabatid
Sakdal contained a Certification stating that its filing before the RTC was
with the prior written authority or approval from the City Prosecutor.
The CA correctly held that based on the wordings of Section 9 of RA
10071, which gave the City Prosecutor the power to [i]nvestigate and/or
cause to be investigated all charges of crimes, misdemeanors and violations
of penal laws and ordinances within their respective jurisdictions, and have
the necessary information or complaint prepared or made and filed against
the persons accused,24 he may indeed delegate his power to his subordinates
as he may deem necessary in the interest of the prosecution service. The CA
also correctly stressed that it is under the auspice of this provision that the
City Prosecutor of Makati issued OCP-Makati Office Order No. 32, which
gave division chiefs or review prosecutors authority to approve or act on
any resolution, order, issuance, other action, and any information
recommended by any prosecutor for approval, 25 without necessarily
diminishing the City Prosecutors authority to act directly in appropriate
cases. 26 By virtue of the foregoing issuances, the City Prosecutor validly
23
24

See id. at 407, citing Villa v. Ibaez, 88 Phil. 402 (1951).

Section 9 of RA 10071 states in full:
Section 9. Powers and Functions of the Provincial Prosecutor or City Prosecutor. The
provincial prosecutor shall:
(a) Be the law officer of the province or city, as the case may be:
(b) Investigate and/or cause to be investigated all charges of crimes, misdemeanors and
violations of penal laws and ordinances within their respective jurisdictions, and have the
necessary information or complaint prepared or made and filed against the persons
accused. In the conduct of such investigations he or any of his/her assistants shall receive
the statements under oath or take oral evidence of witnesses, and for this purpose may by
subpoena summon witnesses to appear and testify under oath before him/her, and the
attendance or evidence of an absent or recalcitrant witness may be enforced by
application to any trial court;

25

26

(c) Have charge of the prosecution of all crimes, misdemeanors and violations of city or
municipal ordinances in the courts at the province or city and therein discharge all the
duties incident to the institution of criminal actions, subject to the provisions of second
paragraph of Section 5 hereof.
See Section 2 of OCP-Makati Office Order No. 32 (rollo, p. 78), which provides:
SEC. 2. Approval of Resolution, issuance, action, and motion and filing of information.
Subject to Section 4 hereof, a division chief or review prosecutor shall have authority to
approve or act on any resolution, order, issuance, other action, and any information
recommended by any prosecutor for approval and assigned to him or her for review,
unless in the assignment it is indicated that the same is subject to the approval of the City
Prosecutor.
See Section 4 of OCP-Makati Office Order No. 32 (id.), which reads:

Decision

G.R. No. 216920

designated SACP Hirang, Deputy City Prosecutor Emmanuel D. Medina,

and Senior Assistant City Prosecutor William Celestino T. Uy as review
prosecutors for the OCP-Makati.27
In this light, the Pasiya or Resolution finding probable cause to indict
petitioner of the crime charged, was validly made as it bore the approval of
one of the designated review prosecutors for OCP-Makati, SACP Hirang, as
evidenced by his signature therein.
Unfortunately, the same could not be said of the Pabatid Sakdal or
Information filed before the RTC, as there was no showing that it was
approved by either the City Prosecutor of Makati or any of the OCPMakatis division chiefs or review prosecutors. All it contained was a
Certification from ACP De La Cruz which stated, among others, that
DAGDAG KO PANG PINATUTUNAYAN na ang paghahain ng sakdal na
ito ay may nakasulat na naunang pahintulot o pagpapatibay ng Panlunsod
na Taga-Usig28 which translates to and that the filing of the Information
is with the prior authority and approval of the City Prosecutor.
In the cases of People v. Garfin,29 Turingan v. Garfin,30 and Tolentino
v. Paqueo,31 the Court had already rejected similarly-worded certifications,
uniformly holding that despite such certifications, the Informations were
defective as it was shown that the officers filing the same in court either
lacked the authority to do so or failed to show that they obtained prior
written authority from any of those authorized officers enumerated in
Section 4, Rule 112 of the 2000 Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure.
Here, aside from the bare and self-serving Certification, there was no
proof that ACP De La Cruz was authorized to file the Pabatid Sakdal or
Information before the RTC by himself. Records are bereft of any showing
that the City Prosecutor of Makati had authorized ACP De La Cruz to do so
by giving him prior written authority or by designating him as a division
chief or review prosecutor of OCP-Makati. There is likewise nothing that
would indicate that ACP De La Cruz sought the approval of either the City
Prosecutor or any of those authorized pursuant to OCP-Makati Office Order
No. 32 in filing the Pabatid Sakdal. Quite frankly, it is simply baffling how
ACP De La Cruz was able to have the Pasiya approved by designated
review prosecutor SACP Hirang but failed to have the Pabatid Sakdal

27
28
29
30
31

SEC. 4. Authority of City Prosecutor to act directly. Nothing in this Order shall
diminish the authority of the City Prosecutor to act directly on any resolution or order
disposing of complaints or cases, and motions pending in the Office of the City
Prosecutor for Makati and on any pleading, motion or any other action to be filed by the
Office in courts or other office.
See OCP-Makati Administrative Order Nos. 10-038, 11-030, and 12-007; id. at 95-97.
Id. at 73.
Supra note 22.
549 Phil. 903 (2007).
551 Phil. 355 (2007).

Decision

G.R. No. 216920

approved by the same person or any other authorized officer in the OCPMakati.
In view of the foregoing circumstances, the CA erred in according the
Pabatid Sakdal the presumption of regularity in the performance of official
functions solely on the basis of the Certification made by ACP De La Cruz
considering the absence of any evidence on record clearly showing that ACP
De La Cruz: (a) had any authority to file the same on his own; or (b) did
seek the prior written approval from those authorized to do so before filing
the Information before the RTC.
In conclusion, the CA erred in affirming the RTC's dismissal of
petitioner's motion to quash as the Pabatid Sakdal or Information suffers
from an incurable infirmity - that the officer who filed the same before the
RTC had no authority to do so. Hence, the Pabatid Sakdal must be quashed,
resulting in the dismissal of the criminal case against petitioner.
As a final note, it must be stressed that "[t]he Rules of Court governs
the pleading, practice, and procedure in all courts of the Philippines. For the
orderly administration of justice, the provisions contained therein should be
followed by all litigants, but especially by the prosecution arm of the
Govemment." 32
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The Decision dated
October 10, 2014 and the Resolution dated January 30, 2015 of the Court of
Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 131968 are hereby REVERSED and SET
ASIDE. Accordingly, the Information against petitioner Girlie M. Quisay is
QUASHED and the criminal case against her is DISMISSED.
SO ORDERED.
Ail) , 'IJ_,Jv
ESTELA Nf.liSERLAS-BERNABE
Associate Justice

WE CONCUR:

MARIA LOURDES P.A. SERENO

Chief Justice
Chairperson

32

Id. at 367.

Decision

G.R. No. 216920

~~~~

TERESITA J. LEONARDO-DE CASTRO

Associate Justice

REZ

CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, I certify that
the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation
before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court's
Division.

MARIA LOURDES P.A. SERENO

Chief Justice