You are on page 1of 1

Quisay v. People (2016) b.

Certification made by ACP Dela Cruz clearly indicated that it was filed
Petition: Review on Certiorari after preliminary investigation and with prior written authority or
Petitioner: Girlie Quisay approval of CP.
Respondent: People of the Philippines i. The certification enjoys presumption of regularity
Ponencia: Perlas-Bernabe, J. c. MR: Denied
3. Hence this petition.
DOCTRINE:
Complaints and Informations filed without prior written authority or approval of the said ISSUE: W/N the motion for quashal of information should be granted– YES.
officers redenders the same defective and subject to quashal.
RULING + RATIO:
PROVISION: 1. Section 4, Rule 112 of the 2000 Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure states
Section 4, Rule 112: that the filing of a complaint or information requires a prior written authority
Xxx or approval of the named officers therein before a complaint or
information may be filed before the courts.
No complaint or information may be filed or dismissed by an
a. 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 investigating prosecutor without the prior written authority or
deputy. approval of the provincial or city prosecutor or chief state
prosecutor or the Ombudsman or his deputy.
FACTS: 2. General Rule: Complaints and Informations filed without prior written authority
1. On December 28, 2012, the Office of the City Prosecutor of Makati (OCP- or approval of the said officers redenders the same defective and subject to
Makati) issued a Pasiya or Resolution finding probable cause against quashal:
Petitioner Quisay for violation of Section 10, R.A. 7610 (Special Protection of a. Section 3(d), Rule 117 (Grounds for quasha)- That the officer who
Children against Abuse, Exploitation, and Discrimination Act). filed has no authority to do so.
2. A Pabatid Sakdal or Information was filed on January 11, 2013 charging 3. People v. Garfin: Filing of an Information without the requisite authority to file
petitioner of said crime constitutes a jurisdictional infirmity which cannot be cured by silence,
3. Petitioner moved to quash the Information on the following ground of lack of waiver, acquiescence or express consent.
authority of person who filed: a. Such ground may be raised at any stage of proceedings.
a. Pasiya was penned by Assistant City Prosecutor De La Cruz, 4. CA correctly held that CP has the power to delegate his power to his
approved by Senior Assistant City Prosecutor Hirang subordinates as he may deem necessary. Hence the Resolution finding
b. BUT the Pabatid Sakdal, pened by ACP De La Cruz, without any probable cause was validly made as it bore the signature of SACP Hirang
approval from any higher authority or the City Prosecutor. a. BUT the same could not be said about the Information as there was
c. Nothing shows a prior written authority or approval was given by the no showng that it was approved by either CP or OCP-Makati
City prosecutor to file or approve the filing of information. Division Chiefs or review prosecutors.
4. OCP-Makati ountered that the review prosecutor, SACP Hirang authorized to 5. The Certification from ACP De La Cruz which translates to “and that the filing
approve Pasiya. The Pabatid Sakdal was filed with the prior approval of the of the Information is with the prior authority and approval of the City
CP as shown in the Certification in the Information Prosecutor” is not sufficient compliance to the Rules.
a. Jurisprudence has previously rejected similarly worded certifications.
COURT PROCEEDINGS: b. They are defective and failed to show that they obtained prior written
1. RTC: Denied motion to quash for lack of merit authority
a. Certification attached to the Information was sufficient compliance to c. Aside from this Certification there was no other proof that ACP De La
Section 4, Rule 112 of the Rules requiring prior written authority or Cruz was authorized.
approval by the City Prosecutor in filing of Informations.
b. MR: Denied. DISPOSITION: Petition is GRANTED.
2. Court of Appeals: Affirmed
a. Pursuant to Section 9 of the Prosecution Service Act of 2010 and
OCP-Makati Office Order No. 32, the CP of Makati authorized SACP
Hirang to approve
i. issuance of resolutions finding probable cause and
ii. filing of Informations