Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Quisay v. People - GR No. - J. Perlas-Bernabe - January 13, 2016 - Who Must Prosecute

    Uploaded by

    Sienna Nacario
    112 views3 pages
    The Supreme Court granted the petition and quashed the information against Girlie Quisay. While the resolution finding probable cause was valid as it was approved by an authorized prosecutor, the information filed in court was not approved by the city prosecutor or any authorized official as required. There was no proof the assistant city prosecutor was authorized to directly file the information. The courts below erred in denying the motion to quash as the officer who filed it had no authority to do so.

    Original Description:

    Original Title

    Quisay v. People

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The Supreme Court granted the petition and quashed the information against Girlie Quisay. While the resolution finding probable cause was valid as it was approved by an authorized prosecutor, the information filed in court was not approved by the city prosecutor or any authorized official as required. There was no proof the assistant city prosecutor was authorized to directly file the information. The courts below erred in denying the motion to quash as the officer who filed it had no authority to do so.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    112 views3 pages

    Quisay v. People - GR No. - J. Perlas-Bernabe - January 13, 2016 - Who Must Prosecute

    Uploaded by

    Sienna Nacario
    The Supreme Court granted the petition and quashed the information against Girlie Quisay. While the resolution finding probable cause was valid as it was approved by an authorized prosecutor, the information filed in court was not approved by the city prosecutor or any authorized official as required. There was no proof the assistant city prosecutor was authorized to directly file the information. The courts below erred in denying the motion to quash as the officer who filed it had no authority to do so.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 3

    Quisay v. People | GR No. | J.

    Perlas-Bernabe | January 13, 2016 | Who Must Prosecute


    PETITIONERS: Girlie M. Quisay
    RESPONDENTS: People of the Philippines

    BUZZWORDS / PHRASES
    Pasiya or Resolution Authority to file Information
    Pabatid-Sakdal or Information Written Approval of City Prosecutor

    ANTECEDENT FACTS
    ● The Office of the City Prosecutor of Makati (OCP-Makati) issued a Pasiya or
    Resolution finding probable cause against petitioner for violation of Section 10 of
    Republic Act No. (RA) 7610.
    ● Consequently, a Pabatid Sakdal or Information was filed before the RTC.
    ● Quisay 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.
    ● 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.
    ● She claims that there was no prior written authority or approval from the City
    Prosecutor to file or approve the filing of the Information against her.
    ● The OCP-Makati countered that the review prosecutor, SACP Hirang, was authorized
    to approve the Pasiya pursuant to OCP- Makati Office Order No. 32.
    ● 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.

    CRIME: Special Protection of Children Against Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination


    Act, RA 7610

    RTC:
    Ruling: DENIED petitioner's motion to quash for lack of merit.

    PROSECUTION DEFENSE
     It found the Certification attached to ● There is no prior written authority or
    the Pabatid Sakdal to have sufficiently approval from the City Prosecutor to
    complied with Section 4, Rule 112 of file or approve the filing of the
    the Rules of Court which requires the Information against her.
    prior written authority or approval by,
    among others, the City Prosecutor, in
    the filing of Information.

    CA: Motion for Reconsideration by accused


    Ruling: AFFIRMED the RTC Ruling

    PROSECUTION DEFENSE
    ● Pursuant to the "Prosecution Service ● There is no prior written authority or
    Act of 2010," as well as OCP-Makati approval from the City Prosecutor to
    Offce Order No. 32, the City file or approve the filing of the
    Prosecutor of Makati authorized Information against her.
    SACP Hirang to approve the issuance
    of,inter alia, resolutions finding
    probable cause and the filing of
    Information before the courts
    ● The Certifcation 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.

    SC: Certiorari/Petition for Review by accused

    ISSUE: W/N the CA correctly held that the RTC did not gravely abuse its discretion in
    dismissing petitioner's motion to quash. – NO

    RATIO
    ● 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
    ● 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.
    ● SECTION 3. (d) Rule 117: “Grounds. — The accused may move to quash the
    complaint or information on any of the following grounds: (d) That the officer
    who filed the information had no authority to do so;”
    ● 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 OCP-Makati's division chiefs or review prosecutors.
    ● 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.
    ● The CA erred in affrming the RTC's dismissal of petitioner's motion to quash as the
    Pabatid Sakdal or Information suffers from an incurable infrmity — 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.

    PETITION IS GRANTED.
    The Information against petitioner Girlie M. Quisay is QUASHED and the criminal case
    against her is DISMISSED.

    You might also like