G.R. No. 216920. January 13, 2016.* 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.

GIRLIE M. QUISAY, petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Same; Same; Same; Section 9 of Republic Act (RA) No. 10071, gave the City
respondents. Prosecutor the power to “[i]nvestigate and/or cause to be investigated all charges of
Criminal Procedure; Pleadings and Practice; Information; Section 4, Rule 112 crimes, misdemeanors and violations of penal laws and ordinances within their
of the 2000 Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure states that the filing of a complaint respective jurisdictions, and have the necessary information or complaint prepared
or information requires a prior written authority or approval of the named officers or made and filed against the persons accused,” he may indeed delegate his power to
therein before a complaint or information may be filed before the courts.—Section 4, his subordinates as he may deem necessary in the interest of the prosecution
Rule 112 of the 2000 Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure states that the filing of service.—The CA correctly held that based on the wordings of Section 9 of RA 10071,
a complaint or information requires a prior written authority or approval of the which gave the City Prosecutor the power to “[i]nvestigate and/or cause to be
named officers therein before a complaint or information may be filed before the investigated all charges of crimes, misdemeanors and violations of penal laws and
courts, viz.: SECTION 4. Resolution of investigating prosecutor and its review.—If ordinances within their respective jurisdictions, and have the necessary
the investigating prosecutor finds cause to hold the respondent for trial, he shall information or complaint prepared or made and filed against the persons
prepare the resolution and information. He shall certify under oath in the accused,” he may indeed delegate his power to his subordinates as he may deem
information that he, or as shown by the record, an authorized officer, has personally necessary in the interest of the prosecution service. The CA also correctly stressed
examined the complainant and his witnesses; that there is reasonable ground to that it is under the auspice of this provision that the City Prosecutor of Makati
believe that a crime has been committed and that the accused is probably guilty issued OCP-Makati
thereof; that the accused was informed of the complaint and of the evidence
submitted against him; and that he was given an opportunity to submit
controverting evidence. Otherwise, he shall recommend the dismissal of the 100
complaint. Within five (5) days from his resolution, he shall forward the record of
100 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
the case to the provincial or city prosecutor or chief state prosecutor, or to the
Ombudsman or his deputy in cases of offenses Quisay vs. People
_______________ 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
* FIRST DIVISION. information recommended by any prosecutor for approval,” without necessarily
diminishing the City Prosecutor’s authority to act directly in appropriate cases. By
virtue of the foregoing issuances, the City Prosecutor validly designated SACP
99 Hirang, Deputy City Prosecutor Emmanuel D. Medina, and Senior Assistant City
Prosecutor William Celestino T. Uy as review prosecutors for the OCP-Makati.
VOL. 781, JANUARY 13, 2016 99
PETITION for review on certiorari of the decision and resolution of the Court of
Quisay vs. People Appeals.
cognizable by the Sandiganbayan in the exercise of its original jurisdiction. The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
They shall act on the resolution within ten (10) days from their receipt thereof and Public Attorney’s Office for petitioner.
shall immediately inform the parties of such action. Nocomplaint or information The Solicitor General for respondent.
may be filed or dismissed by an investigating prosecutor without the prior PERLAS-BERNABE, J.:
written authority or approval of theprovincial or city prosecutor or chief
state prosecutor or the Ombudsman or his deputy. x x x x (Emphases and Assailed in this petition for review on certiorari1 are the Decision2 dated
underscoring supplied) Thus, as a general rule, complaints or informations filed October 10, 2014 and the Resolution3 dated January 30, 2015 of the Court of
before the courts without the prior written authority or approval of the foregoing Appeals (CA) in C.A.-G.R. S.P. No. 131968, which affirmed the denial of petitioner
authorized officers renders the same defective and, therefore, subject to quashal Girlie M. Quisay’s (petitioner) Motion to Quash before the Regional Trial Court of
pursuant to Section 3(d), Rule 117 of the same Rules. Makati, Branch 144 (RTC).
Same; Same; Same; People v. Garfin, 426 SCRA 393 (2004), firmly instructs
that the filing of an Information by an officer without the requisite authority to file The Facts
the same constitutes a jurisdictional infirmity which cannot be cured by silence,
waiver, acquiescence, or even by express consent.—In this relation, People v. Garfin, On December 28, 2012, the Office of the City Prosecutor of Makati City (OCP-
426 SCRA 393 (2004), firmly instructs that the filing of an Information by an officer Makati) issued a Pasiya4 or Resolution
without the requisite authority to file the same constitutes a jurisdictional infirmity _______________
 1 Rollo, pp. 23-41. Order No. 32.9 Further, it maintained that the Pabatid Sakdal was filed with
2 Id., at pp. 126-134. Penned by Associate Justice Rebecca De Guia-Salvador, the prior approval of the City Prosecutor as shown in the Certification in the
with Associate Justices Ricardo R. Rosario and Leoncia R. Dimagiba, concurring. Information itself.10
3 Id., at pp. 149-150.
4 Id., at pp. 69-71. Penned by Assistant City Prosecutor Estefano H. De La The RTC’s Ruling
Cruz and approved by Senior Assistant City Prosecutor Edgardo G. Hirang.
In an Order11 dated May 8, 2013, the RTC denied petitioner’s motion to quash
for lack of merit. It found the Certification attached to the Pabatid Sakdal to have
101 sufficiently complied with Section 4, Rule 112 of the Rules of Court which requires
the prior written authority or approval by, among others, the City Prosecutor, in
VOL. 781, JANUARY 13, 2016 101
the filing of Informations.12
Quisay vs. People Petitioner moved for reconsideration,13 which was, however, denied in an
finding probable cause against petitioner for violation of Section 10 of Republic Order14 dated July 10, 2013. Aggrieved, petitioner elevated the matter to the
Act No. (RA) 7610,5 otherwise known as the “Special Protection of Children Against CA via a petition for certiorari.15
Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination Act.” Consequently, a Pabatid Sakdal6 or
Information was filed before the RTC on January 11, 2013 charging petitioner of The CA’s Ruling
such crime.
On April 12, 2013, petitioner moved for the quashal of the Information against In a Decision16 dated October 10, 2014, the CA affirmed the RTC ruling. It held
her on the ground of lack of authority of the person who filed the same before the that pursuant to Section 9 of RA 10071,17 otherwise known as the “Prosecution
RTC. In support of her motion, petitioner pointed out that the Pasiya issued by the Service Act of 2010,” as well as OCP-Makati Office Order No. 32, the City Prosecutor
OCP-Makati was penned by Assistant City Prosecutor Estefano H. De La Cruz of Makati authorized SACP Hirang to approve the issuance of, inter alia,
(ACP De La Cruz) and approved by Senior Assistant City Prosecutor Edgardo G. resolutions finding probable cause and the filing
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 9 Issued on July 29, 2011. Id., at p. 78.
Prosecutor in filing the said Information. In this regard, petitioner claimed that 10 Id., at p. 77.
nothing in the aforesaid Pasiya and Pabatid Sakdal would show that ACP De La 11 Id., at p. 79. Penned by Presiding Judge Liza Marie R. Picardal-Tecson.
Cruz and/or SACP Hirang had prior written authority or approval from the City 12 Id.
Prosecutor to file or approve the filing of the Information against her. As such, the 13 See motion for reconsideration dated May 20, 2013; id., at pp. 80-81.
Information must be quashed for being tainted with a jurisdictional defect that 14 Id., at p. 82.
cannot be cured.7 15 Id., at pp. 47-65.
In its Comment and Opposition,8 the OCP-Makati countered that the review 16 Id., at pp. 126-134.
prosecutor, SACP Hirang, was authorized to approve the Pasiya pursuant to OCP- 17 Entitled “An Act Strengthening and Rationalizing the National Prosecution
Makati Office Service” (approved on April 8, 2010).
_______________

5 Entitled “An Act Providing for Stronger Deterrence and Special Protection 103
Against Child Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination, Providing Penalties for its VOL. 781, JANUARY 13, 2016 103
Violation, and for Other Purposes” (approved on June 17, 1992).
6 Rollo, pp. 72-73. Signed by Assistant City Prosecutor Estefano H. De La Cruz. Quisay vs. People
7 See Motion to Quash dated April 12, 2013; id., at pp. 74-76. of Informations before the courts. As such, SACP Hirang may, on behalf of the
8 Id., at p. 77. City Prosecutor, approve the Pasiya which found probable cause to indict petitioner
of violation of Section 10 of RA 7610.18
Further, it held that the Certification made by ACP De La Cruz in the Pabatid
102 Sakdal clearly indicated that the same was filed after the requisite preliminary
investigation and with the prior written authority or approval of the City
102 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Prosecutor. In this regard, the CA opined that such Certification enjoys the
Quisay vs. People
presumption of regularity accorded to a public officer’s performance of official No complaint or information may be filed or dismissed by an
functions, in the absence of convincing evidence to the contrary.19 investigating prosecutor without the prior written authority or
Undaunted, petitioner moved for reconsideration, 20 but was denied in a approval of the provincial or city prosecutor or chief state prosecutor or
Resolution21 dated January 30, 2015; hence, this petition. the Ombudsman or his deputy.
x x x x (Emphases and underscoring supplied)
The Issue Before the Court
Thus, as a general rule, complaints or informations filed before the courts
The core issue for the Court’s resolution is whether or not the CA correctly held without the prior written authority or approval of the foregoing authorized officers
that the RTC did not gravely abuse its discretion in dismissing petitioner’s motion renders the same defective and, therefore, subject to quashal pursuant to Section
to quash. 3(d), Rule 117 of the same Rules, to wit:

The Court’s Ruling SECTION 3. Grounds.—The accused may move to quash the
complaint or information on any of the following grounds:
The petition is meritorious. xxxx
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 105
filed before the courts, viz.:
VOL. 781, JANUARY 13, 2016 105
_______________
Quisay vs. People
18 Id., at pp. 128-131. (d) That the officer who filed the information had no authority
19 Id., at pp. 132-133. to do so.
20 See motion for reconsideration dated November 18, 2014; id., at pp. 135- x x x x (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)
143.
21 Id., at pp. 149-150. 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
104 even by express consent. Hence, such ground may be raised at any stage of the
proceedings.23
104 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
In the case at bar, the CA affirmed the denial of petitioner’s motion to quash on
Quisay vs. People the grounds that: (a) the City Prosecutor of Makati may delegate its authority to
SECTION 4. Resolution of investigating prosecutor and its review.— approve the filing of the Pabatid Sakdal pursuant to Section 9 of RA 10071, as well
If the investigating prosecutor finds cause to hold the respondent for trial, as OCP-Makati Office Order No. 32; and (b) the Pabatid Sakdal contained a
he shall prepare the resolution and information. He shall certify under oath Certification stating that its filing before the RTC was with the prior written
in the information that he, or as shown by the record, an authorized officer, authority or approval from the City Prosecutor.
has personally examined the complainant and his witnesses; that there is The CA correctly held that based on the wordings of Section 9 of RA 10071,
reasonable ground to believe that a crime has been committed and that the which gave the City Prosecutor the power to “[i]nvestigate and/or cause to be
accused is probably guilty thereof; that the accused was informed of the investigated all charges of crimes, misdemeanors and violations of penal laws and
complaint and of the evidence submitted against him; and that he was given ordinances within their respective jurisdictions, and have the necessary
an opportunity to submit controverting evidence. Otherwise, he shall information or complaint prepared or made and filed against the persons
recommend the dismissal of the complaint. accused,”24 he may in-
Within five (5) days from his resolution, he shall forward the record of _______________
the case to the provincial or city prosecutor or chief state prosecutor, or to
the Ombudsman or his deputy in cases of offenses cognizable by 22 G.R. No. 153176, March 29, 2004, 426 SCRA 393.
the Sandiganbayan in the exercise of its original jurisdiction. They shall act 23 Id., at p. 407, citing Villa v. Ibañez, 88 Phil. 402 (1951).
on the resolution within ten (10) days from their receipt thereof and shall 24 Section 9 of RA 10071 states in full:
immediately inform the parties of such action. Section 9. Powers and Functions of the Provincial Prosecutor or City
Prosecutor.—The provincial prosecutor shall:
 (a) Be the law officer of the province or city, as the case may be;
Quisay vs. People
(b) Investigate and/or cause to be investigated all charges of crimes,
ances, the City Prosecutor validly designated SACP Hirang, Deputy City
misdemeanors and violations of penal laws and ordinances within their respective
Prosecutor Emmanuel D. Medina, and Senior Assistant City Prosecutor William
jurisdictions, and have the necessary information or complaint prepared or made
Celestino T. Uy as review prosecutors for the OCP-Makati.27
and filed
In this light, 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
106
signature therein.
106 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 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
Quisay vs. People
City Prosecutor of Makati or any of the OCP-Makati’s division chiefs or review
deed delegate his power to his subordinates as he may deem necessary in the prosecutors. All it contained was a Certification from ACP De La Cruz which stated,
interest of the prosecution service. The CA also correctly stressed that it is under among others, that “DAGDAG KO PANG PINATUTUNAYAN na ang paghahain ng
the auspice of this provision that the City Prosecutor of Makati issued OCP-Makati sakdal na ito ay may nakasulat na naunang pahintulot o pagpapatibay ng
Office Order No. 32, which gave division chiefs or review prosecutors “authority to Panlunsod na Taga-Usig”28 — which translates to “and that the filing of the
approve or act on any resolution, order, issuance, other action, and any information Information is with the prior authority and approval of the City Prosecutor.”
recommended by any prosecutor for approval,”25without necessarily diminishing the
In the cases of People v. Garfin,29 Turingan v. Garfin,30 and Tolentino v.
City Prosecutor’s authority to act directly in appropriate cases.26 By virtue of the
Paqueo, Jr.,31 the Court had already rejected similarly-worded certifications,
foregoing issu- uniformly holding that despite such certifications, the Informations were defective
_______________ as it was shown that the officers filing the same in court either lacked the authority
to do so or failed to show that they obtained prior written authority from any of
against the persons accused. In the conduct of such investigations he or any of those authorized
his/her assistants shall receive the statements under oath or take oral evidence of _______________
witnesses, and for this purpose may by subpoena summon witnesses to appear and
testify under oath before him/her, and the attendance or evidence of an absent or
Prosecutor for Makati and on any pleading, motion or any other action to be
recalcitrant witness may be enforced by application to any trial court;
filed by the Office in courts or other office.
(c) Have charge of the prosecution of all crimes, misdemeanors and violations 27 See OCP-Makati Administrative Order Nos. 10-038, 11-030, and 12-007; id.,
of city or municipal ordinances in the courts at the province or city and therein at pp. 95-97.
discharge all the duties incident to the institution of criminal actions, subject to the 28 Id., at p. 73.
provisions of second paragraph of Section 5 hereof. 29 People v. Garfin, supra note 22.
25 See Section 2 of OCP-Makati Office Order No. 32 (Rollo, p. 78), which
30 549 Phil. 903; 521 SCRA 389 (2007).
provides:
31 551 Phil. 355; 523 SCRA 377 (2007).
SEC. 2. Approval of Resolution, issuance, action, and motion and filing of
information.—Subject to Section 4 hereof, a division chief or review prosecutor shall
have authority to approve or act on any resolution, order, issuance, other action,
108
and any information recommended by any prosecutor for approval and assigned to
him or her for review, unless in the assignment it is indicated that the same is 108 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
subject to the approval of the City Prosecutor.
Quisay vs. People
26 See Section 4 of OCP-Makati Office Order No. 32 (id.), which reads:
officers enumerated in Section 4, Rule 112 of the 2000 Revised Rules of
SEC. 4. Authority of City Prosecutor to act directly.—Nothing in this Order
Criminal Procedure.
shall diminish the authority of the City Prosecutor to act directly on any resolution
Here, aside from the bare and self-serving Certification, there was no proof that
or order disposing of complaints or cases, and motions pending in the Office of the
ACP De La Cruz was authorized to file the Pabatid Sakdal or Information before
City
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-
107
Makati. There is likewise nothing that would indicate that ACP De La Cruz sought
VOL. 781, JANUARY 13, 2016 107 the approval of either the City Prosecutor or any of those authorized pursuant to
OCP-Makati Office Order No. 32 in filing the Pabatid Sakdal. Quite frankly, it is
simply baffling how ACP De La Cruz was able to have the Pasiya approved by
designated review prosecutor SACP Hirang but failed to have the Pabatid
Sakdal approved by the same person or any other authorized officer in the OCP-
Makati.
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.
As a final note, it must be stressed that “[t]he Rules of Court governs the
pleading, practice, and procedure in all courts of the Philippines. For the orderly
administration of justice, the provisions contained therein should be followed by

109
VOL. 781, JANUARY 13, 2016 109
Quisay vs. People
all litigants, but especially by the prosecution arm of the Government.”32
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The Decision dated October 10,
2014 and the Resolution dated January 30, 2015 of the Court of Appeals in C.A.-
G.R. S.P. No. 131968 are hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accordingly, the
Information against petitioner Girlie M. Quisay is QUASHED and the criminal
case against her is DISMISSED.
SO ORDERED.
Sereno (CJ., Chairperson), Leonardo-De Castro, Bersamin and Perez, JJ.,
concur.
Petition granted, judgment and resolution reversed and set aside.
Notes.—Since the date of commission of the offense is not required with
exactitude, the allegation in an information of a date of commission different from
the one eventually established during the trial would not, as a rule, be considered
as an error fatal to prosecution. (People vs. Delfin, 729 SCRA 617 [2014])
Under Section 6, Rule 110 of the Rules of Court, the information is sufficient if
it states the name of the accused; the designation of the offense given by the statute;
the acts or omissions complained of as constituting the offense; the name of the
offended party; the proximate date of the commission of the offense; and the place
where the offense was committed. (Rosaldes vs. People, 737 SCRA592 [2014])

——o0o——