C2RT!F!

Ep_TRU~ COPY

:.; , ... -~ ··.:-:i.i ~t i'.~.rl1i.i~!-,··~;

f\
,._.,;,. •···~·~ ......
,.i. ,,•-·"" ..i ea.: '·
.. ,~ •• -·~ .•
~~~
? v.
""! r-.. 1
:: ' ' '
..,........
I~
"!'.-,
• " • LA AN
~ : ....... -··~·.J •l_1,,,,.. •. .1..' Q,~ •\I.1
i '.'"'If..•''·•
? • ':····
ln . .c .~ ·.; n C I e r k o ( Co u rt

~.1i \\ JAM 0 ~ ~ \ \...r.

i I

TLTd Division
I• ,. , ~r 1 OEC z 8 mr~
ll\l_::r~''iY
• l.\:•..
31\.rpu(Jlic of tbe ~bilippines
,:;t:· t\v -...
.......______.-.....-:.--
k·

t.:f\• ,._ --
.
-- §5,upreme ([ourt
-, "'"' . lo\ w -
;1fllln niln

THIRD DIVISION

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, G.R. No. 207041

represented by the Office of the City
Prosecutor, Department of Justice, Present:
Roxas City,
Petitioner, VELASCO, JR., J, Chairperson,
PERALTA,
BERSAMIN,*
- versus - VILLARAMA, JR., and
REYES,JJ.

Promulgated:
JESUS A. ARROJADO, November 9, 2015

x------------------- ------------~~~~~~~~~'.~-------------~-~---x
DECISION

PERALTA, J.:

Before the Court is a petition for review on certiorari seeking to set

aside the Decision 1 and Resolution 2 of the Court of Appeals (CA), dated
September 8, 2011 and April 18, 2013, respectively, in CA-G.R. SP No.
04540. The assailed Decision affirmed the Orders of the Regional Trial
Court (RTC) of Makati City, Branch 16, dated July 2, 2009 and July 23,
2009 in Criminal Case No. C-75-09, while the questioned Resolution denied
petitioners' Motion for Reconsideration.

The pertinent factual and procedural antecedents of the case are as

follows:

Designated Additional Member in lieu of Associate Justice Francis I-I. Jardeleza, per Raflle dated
November 17, 2014.
1
Penned by Associate Justice Ramon Paul L. Hernando, with Associate .Justices Edgardo L. Delos
Santos and Victoria Isabel A. Paredes, concurring; Annex "A" to Petition, rollo pp. 22-31.
2
Annex "B" to Petition, id. at 32-33.

c/
 Decision -2- G.R. No. 207041

In an Information dated March 23, 2009, herein.,,;~spqndf-;nt was

charged with the crime of murder by the Office of\the'Gity Prqse'cihor of
Roxas City, Capiz. The case was docketed as Crimi~ai Case No.
_"£~'1·5-'09
and was raffled off to Branch 16 of the Regional TrialCourt ofRoxas Ci;tij,
Iloilo (RTC ofRoxas City).

On June 16, 2009, respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss 3 the

Information filed against him on the ground that the investigating prosecutor
who filed the said Information failed to indicate therein the number and date
of issue of her Mandatory Continuing Legal Education (MCLE) Certificate
of Compliance, as required by Bar Matter No. 1922 (B.M No. 1922) which
was promulgated by this Court via an En Banc Resolution dated June 3,
2008. 4

Herein petitioner filed its Comment/Opposition 5 to respondent's

Motion to Dismiss contending that: ( 1) the Information sought to be
dismissed is sufficient in form and substance; (2) the lack of proof of MCLE
compliance by the prosecutor who prepared and signed the Information
should not prejudice the interest of the State in filing charges against persons
who have violated the law; and (3) an administrative edict cannot prevail
over substantive or procedural law, by imposing additional requirements for
the sufficiency of a criminal information.

On July 2, 2009, the RTC of Roxas City issued an Ordcr6 dismissing

the subject Information without prejudice. Respondent filed a Motion for
Reconsideration,7 but the trial court denied it in its Order8 dated July 23,
2009.

Respondent then filed a petition for certiorari and/or mandamus with

the CA assailing the July 2, 2009 and July 23, 2009 Orders of the RTC of
Roxas City.

In its presently assailed Decision, the CA denied respondent's petition

and affirmed the questioned RTC Orders. Respondent's Motion for
Reconsideration was likewise denied by the CA in its disputed Resolution.

Hence, the present petition for review on certiorari raising a sole

Assignment of Error, to wit:

Annex ''E" to Petition, id. at 53-55.

ti
4
The rule took effoct on January 1, 2009.
Annex "F" to Petition, rollo, p. 56.
Annex"!-!" to Petition, id. at 60.
Annex"!" to Petition, id. at 61-64.
Annex "J" to Petition, id. at 65-66.
 Decision -3- G.R. No. 207041

THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED WHEN IT RULED

THAT THE FAILURE OF THE INVESTIGATING PROSECUTOR TO
INDICATE HER MCLE COMPLIANCE NUMBER AND DATE OF
ISSUANCE THEREOF IN THE INFORMATION AGAINST
RESPONDENT JESUS A. ARROJADO WARRANTED THE
9
DISMISSAL OF THE SAME.

Petitioner contends that: (1) the term "pleadings" as used in B.M. No.
1922 does not include criminal Informations filed in court; (2) the failure of
the investigating prosecutor to indicate in the Information the number and
date of issue of her MCLE Certificate of Compliance is a mere formal defect
and is not a valid ground to dismiss the subject Information which is
otherwise complete in form and substance.

The petition lacks merit.

Pertinent portions ofB.M. No. 1922, provide as follows:

xx xx

The Court further Resolved, upon the recommendation of the Committee

on Legal Education and Bar Matters, to REQUIRE practicing members of
the bar to INDICATE in all pleadings filed before the courts or guasi-
judicial bodies, the number and date of issue of their MCLE Certificate of
Compliance or Certificate of Exemption, as may be applicable, for the
immediately preceding compliance period. Failure to disclose the required
information would cause the dismissal of the case and the expunction of
the pleadings from the records.

xx x 10

Section 1, Rule 6 of the Rules of Court, as amended, defines pleadings

as the written statements of the respective claims and defenses of the parties
submitted to the court for appropriate judgment. Among the pleadings
enumerated under Section 2 thereof are the complaint and the answer in a
civil suit. On the other hand, under Section 4, Rule 110 of the same Rules,
an information is defined as an accusation in writing charging a person with
an offense, subscribed by the prosecutor and filed with the court. In
accordance with the above definitions, it is clear that an information is a
pleading since the allegations therein, which charge a person with an
offense, is basically the same as a complaint in a civil action which alleges a
plaintiffs cause or cause of action. In this respect, the Comi quotes with
approval the ruling of the CA on the matter, to wit:

10
Rollo, p. I 0.
(/1
Emphasis supplied.
 Decision -4- GR. No. 207041

xx xx

[A]n information is, for all intents and purposes, considered an initiatory
pleading because it is a written statement that contains the cause of action
of a party, which in criminal cases is the State as represented by the
prosecutor, against the accused. Like a pleading, the Information is also
filed in court for appropriate judgment. Undoubtedly then, an Information
falls squarely within the ambit of Bar Matter No. 1922, in relation to Bar
Matter 850. 11

Even under the rules of criminal procedure of the United States, upon
which our rules of criminal procedure were patterned, an information is
considered a pleading. Thus, Rule l 2(a), Title IV of the United States
Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, states that: "[t]he pleadings in a
criminal proceeding are the indictment, the information, and the pleas of not
guilty, guilty, and nolo contendere." Thus, the Supreme Court of
Washington held that:

An information is a pleading. It is the formal statement on the part

of the state of the facts constituting the offense which the defendant is
accused of committing. In other words, it is the plain and concise statement
of the facts constituting the cause of action. It bears the same relation to a
criminal action that a complaint docs to a civil action; and, when verified,
its object is not to satisf-y the court or jury that the defondant is guilty, nor
is it for the purpose of evidence which is to be weighed and passed upon,
but is only to inform the defendant of the precise acts or omissions with
which he is accused, the truth of which is to be determined thereafter by
direct and positive evidence upon a trial, where the defendant is brought
face to face with the witnesses. 12

In a similar manner, the Supreme Court of Illinois ruled that "[a]n

indictment in a criminal case is a pleading, since it accomplishes the same
purpose as a declaration in a civil suit, pleading by allegation the cause of
action in law against [a] defendant." 13

As to petitioner's contention that the failure of the investigating

prosecutor to indicate in the subject Information the number and elate of
issue of her MCLE Certificate of Compliance is a mere formal defect and is
not a valid ground to dismiss such Information, suffice it to state that B.M.
No. 1922 categorically provides that "[(Jailure to disclose the required
information would cause the dismissal of the case and the expunction of the
pleadings from the records." In this regard, petitioner must be reminded
that it assailed the trial court's dismissal of the subject Information via a
special civil action for certiorari filed with the CA. The writ of certiorari is
directed against a tribunal, board or officer exercising judicial or quasi-

t/1
11
id. at 27-28.
12
State v Cronin, 20 Wash. 512; McClendon v. Callahan 46 Wn. 2d 733.
11
l'eople v. Fox, 346 Ill. 374.
 Decision -5- GR. No. 207041

judicial functions that acted without or in excess of its or his jurisdiction or

14
with grave abuse of discretion. Grave abuse of discretion means such
capricious or whimsical exercise of judgment which is equivalent to lack of
jurisdiction. 15 To justify the issuance of the writ of certiorari, the abuse of
discretion must be grave, as when the power is exercised in an arbitrary or
despotic manner by reason of passion or personal hostility, and it must be so
patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of a positive duty or to a virtual
refusal to perform the duty enjoined, or to act at all, in contemplation of law,
as to be equivalent to having acted without jurisdiction. 16 Since the trial
court's dismissal of the subject Information was based on a clear and
categorical provision of a rule issued by this Court, the court a quo could not
have committed a capricious or whimsical exercise of judgment nor did it
exercise its discretion in an arbitrary or despotic manner. Thus, the CA did
not commit error in dismissing petitioner's petition for certiorari.

In harping on its contention that the ends of justice would be best

served if the criminal case would be allowed to proceed in order to
determine the innocence or culpability of the accused, petitioner sounds as if
the dismissal of the Information left the prosecution with no other recourse
or remedy so as to irreversibly jeopardize the interests of the State and the
private offended party. On the contrary, the Court agrees with the CA that
the dismissal of the Information, without prejudice, did not leave the
prosecution without any other plain, speedy and adequate remedy. To avoid
undue delay in the disposition of the subject criminal case and to uphold the
paiiies' respective rights to a speedy disposition of their case, the
prosecution, mindful of its duty not only to prosecute offenders but more
importantly to do justice, could have simply re-filed the Information
containing the required number and date of issue of the investigating
prosecutor's MCLE Certificate of Compliance, instead of resorting to the
filing of various petitions in court to stubbornly insist on its position and
question the trial court's dismissal of the subject Information, thereby
wasting its time and effort and the State's resources.

The Court is neither persuaded by petitioner's invocation of the

principle on liberal construction of procedural rules by arguing that such
liberal construction "may be invoked in situations where there may be some
excusable formal deficiency or error in a pleading, provided that the same
does not subvert the essence of the proceeding and connotes at least a
reasonable attempt at compliance with the Rules." The prosecution has
never shown any reasonable attempt at compliance with the rule enunciated
under B.M. No. 1922. Even when the motion for reconsideration of the
RTC Order dismissing the subject Information was filed, the required
number and date of issue of the investigating prosecutor's MCLE Certificate
14
15

16
Id.
Id.
(If
Julie's Franchise Corporation, et al. v. Hon. Judge Ruiz, et al. 614 Phil. I 08, 116 (2009).
 Decision - 6- GR. No. 207041

of Compliance was still not included nor indicated. Thus, in the instant case,
absent valid and compelling reasons, the requested leniency and liberality in
the observance of procedural rules appear to be an afterthought, hence,
cannot be granted.

In any event, to avoid inordinate delays in the disposition of cases

brought about by a counsel's failure to indicate in his or her pleadings the
number and date of issue of his or her MCLE Certificate of Compliance, this
Court issued an En Banc Resolution, dated January 14, 2014 which amended
B.M. No. 1922 by repealing the phrase "Failure to disclose the required
information would cause the dismissal of the case and the expunction of the
pleadings from the records" and replacing it with "Failure to disclose the
required information would subject the counsel to appropriate penalty and
disciplinary action." Thus, under the amendatory Resolution, the failure of a
lawyer to indicate in his or her pleadings the number and date of issue of his
or her MCLE Certificate of Compliance will no longer result in the dismissal
of the case and expunction of the pleadings from the records. Nonetheless,
such failure will subject the lawyer to the prescribed fine and/or disciplinary
action.

In light of the above amendment, while the same was not yet in effect
at the time that the subject Information was filed, the more prudent and
practical thing that the trial court should have done in the first place, so as to
avoid delay in the disposition of the case, was not to dismiss the Information
but to simply require the investigating prosecutor to indicate therein the
number and date of issue of her MCLE Certificate of Compliance.

WHEREFORE, the instant 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.

SO ORDERED.
 Decision -7- GR. No. 207041

WE CONCUR:

PRESBITERO/.J. VELASCO, JR.

~T~S:'VJ~;.
Associate ·

BIENVENIDO L. REYES
Associate Justice

ATTESTATION

I attest 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.

J. VELASCO, JR.
A¢'ociate Justice
Chairp/rson, Third Division

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution and the

Division Chairperson's Attestation, it is hereby certified 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.

(:JJ__i 'i~D TRUE COPY

···n~~VLgA~AN
MARIA LOURDES P.A. SERENO
.~ ~ " · ... • ...J .l..'' • · ri Chief Justice
JO:: :'~'• · !ed-: o!Court
Divis:un
DEC 2 8 2015