QUISAY v PEOPLE
FACTS: Office of the City Prosecutor of Makati City (OCP-Makati) issued a Resolution finding probable cause
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, an Information was
filed before the RTC charging petitioner of such crime. 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. RTC denied petitioner's
motion to quash for lack of merit. The CA affirmed the RTC ruling.
ISSUE: The core issue for the Court's resolution is whether or not the CA correctly held that the RTC did not
gravely abuse its discretion in dismissing petitioner's motion to quash
RULING: The petition is meritorious.
RATIONALE: 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 prosecutoror 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;
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, waiver,
acquiescence, or even by express consent. Hence, such ground may be raised at any stage of the
proceedings.23chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
In the case at bar, the CA affirmed the denial of petitioner's 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 "[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,"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 Prosecutor's authority to act directly in appropriate cases. 26 By virtue of the
foregoing issuances, the City Prosecutor validly 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.27chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
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.
