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