In the Philippines, a criminal information filed in court must have the prior written approval of the City Prosecutor. This ensures that the prosecution has properly determined probable cause and that the case is filed with due legal authority. The Supreme Court, in John Labsky P. Maximo and Robert M. Panganiban v. Francisco Z. Villapando, Jr., reiterated that an information filed without this approval is defective, depriving the court of jurisdiction over the case. This decision underscores the importance of adhering to procedural rules to safeguard the rights of the accused and maintain the integrity of the legal process.

Challenging Perjury: Does Lack of Prosecutorial Approval Doom the Case?

The case began with a perjury complaint filed by John Labsky P. Maximo and Robert M. Panganiban against Francisco Z. Villapando, Jr. The dispute arose from a previous complaint filed by Villapando against Maximo and Panganiban, alleging violations of the Subdivision and Condominium Buyer’s Protective Decree. Maximo and Panganiban claimed that Villapando falsely stated they were officers of ASB Realty Corporation when the contract was executed, leading to the perjury charge. This legal battle then pivoted on whether the information filed against Villapando had the necessary approval from the City Prosecutor.

The central issue before the Supreme Court was whether the Amended Information filed against Villapando was valid, considering it was signed by an Assistant City Prosecutor (ACP) who purportedly lacked the authority to do so. Section 4, Rule 112 of the 2000 Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure is very clear, stating that:

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.

Therefore, if the ACP filed the information without the requisite prior written authority, it would render the information defective and subject to quashal. Maximo and Panganiban argued that the Information bore a certification that its filing had the City Prosecutor’s prior authority. They contended that a presumption of regularity in the performance of official functions should apply. Villapando, however, challenged the validity of the Information, asserting that the ACP lacked the proper authorization.

The Court of Appeals (CA) sided with Villapando, finding that there was no proof of valid delegation of authority from the City Prosecutor to the ACP. The CA noted that despite a claim of Office Order No. 32 authorizing the Assistant City Prosecutor to sign on behalf of the city prosecutor, there was no copy of the said order provided in the records of the case.

x x x We scoured the records of the case and We did not find a copy of the purported Office Order No, 32 allegedly authorizing the Assistant City Prosecutor to sign in behalf of the city prosecutor. While We, too, are not oblivious of the enormous responsibility and the heavy volume of work by our prosecutors, We believe that such reality does not excuse them to comply with the mandatory requirement stated in our rules of procedure. Moreover, the said Office Order No. 32 is not a matter of judicial notice, hence, a copy of the same must be presented in order for the court to have knowledge of the contents of which. In the absence thereof, We find that there was no valid delegation of the authority by the City Prosecutor to its Assistant Prosecutor.

The Supreme Court affirmed the CA’s decision, emphasizing that the filing of an Information by an officer without the requisite authority is a jurisdictional defect. As previously stated, the absence of prior written authority from the City Prosecutor meant the Information was invalid. The Supreme Court has consistently held a very firm stance on the importance of this procedural requirement.

x x x Now, the objection to the respondent’s actuations goes to the very foundation of the jurisdiction. It is avalid information signed by a competent officer which, among other requisites, confers jurisdiction on the court over the person of the accused and the subject matter of the accusation. In consonance with this view, an infirmity in the information cannot be cured by silence, acquiescence, or even by express consent.

The Supreme Court rejected the argument that the City Prosecutor’s subsequent denial of Villapando’s motion for reconsideration validated the Information. The Court held that the defect was jurisdictional and could not be cured retroactively. Moreover, the court reiterated that this jurisdictional defect in the information is important to observe; the courts have no jurisdiction over the case because of the defect in the information. This is why there is no point in proceeding under a defective Information that could never be the basis of a valid conviction.

Maximo and Panganiban also challenged Villapando’s choice of legal remedies, arguing that he should have appealed the denial of his motion to quash instead of filing a special civil action for certiorari. The Supreme Court acknowledged that certiorari is generally not the proper remedy for assailing the denial of a motion to quash. However, the Court also recognized exceptions, such as when the lower court acted with grave abuse of discretion. The Court found that the Metropolitan Trial Court (METC) committed grave abuse of discretion in denying Villapando’s motion to quash given the lack of prosecutorial authority.

Further, Maximo and Panganiban claimed that Villapando engaged in forum shopping by raising the same issues before the Court of Appeals (CA) and the Department of Justice (DOJ). The Supreme Court disagreed, noting that the DOJ’s findings are not binding on the courts. The filing of appeals with the DOJ as well as the filing of the petition with the CA would not constitute forum shopping for the reason that the finding of the DOJ would not be binding upon the courts.

The Supreme Court clarified that the People of the Philippines was represented by the Makati City Prosecution Office before the RTC and by the Office of the Solicitor General before the CA, and were duly furnished with copies of all the pleadings. All criminal actions commenced by a complaint or information shall be prosecuted under the direction and control of the prosecutor. The prosecution of offenses is thus the concern of the government prosecutors.

Villapando also argued that the CA should have determined whether violations of Sections 17, 20, and 25 of P.D. No. 957 are continuing offenses. The Supreme Court declined to address this issue, stating that it would be premature to do so without a valid Information filed. The resolution on whether Sections 17, 20 and 25 of P.D. No. 957 are continuing offenses would necessarily pre-empt the outcome of the trial before the proper court should an information be re-filed by the City Prosecutor.

The Supreme Court noted that the defect in the Information could have been easily cured by a simple motion to amend it, adding the City Prosecutor’s signature or approval. The Supreme Court, in this case, served as a reminder of the prosecutor’s power in any action. The prosecutor or the judge from the lower court should be aware of the provisions of the Rules of Court on the matter. This highlights the importance of diligence and adherence to procedural rules by both prosecutors and judges.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether the Amended Information filed against Villapando was valid, considering the absence of prior written authority or approval from the City Prosecutor. This issue directly impacted the jurisdiction of the court over the case.
What does Rule 112, Section 4 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure state?	Rule 112, Section 4 states that no complaint or information may be filed without the prior written authority or approval of the provincial or city prosecutor. This ensures that the case is properly vetted and authorized before proceeding in court.
Why is the City Prosecutor’s approval so important?	The City Prosecutor’s approval is crucial because it ensures that there is probable cause to believe a crime has been committed. This approval also verifies that the case is filed in accordance with legal standards and procedural rules, protecting the rights of the accused.
What happens if an Information is filed without the City Prosecutor’s approval?	If an Information is filed without the required approval, it is considered defective, depriving the court of jurisdiction over the case. This means the court cannot proceed with the trial, and the Information may be quashed.
Can the lack of approval be corrected later on?	The Supreme Court has ruled that the lack of prior approval is a jurisdictional defect that cannot be cured retroactively. Subsequent actions, such as the City Prosecutor denying a motion for reconsideration, do not validate the defective Information.
What legal remedy can be used if a motion to quash is denied?	While the usual remedy is to continue with the trial and appeal if convicted, a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 may be allowed if the court acted with grave abuse of discretion. This exception applies when the court’s actions affect its jurisdiction over the case.
What is forum shopping, and did it occur in this case?	Forum shopping is when a party files multiple suits in different courts seeking the same relief. The Supreme Court held that forum shopping did not occur because the findings of the DOJ are not binding on the courts, and the filing of a petition with the CA while a petition is pending with the DOJ Secretary is permissible.
What is the significance of this ruling for future cases?	This ruling reinforces the importance of adhering to procedural rules, particularly the requirement for prior written approval from the City Prosecutor. It serves as a reminder to prosecutors and judges to ensure that all legal requirements are met to maintain the integrity of the judicial process.

This case underscores the critical role of prosecutorial oversight in ensuring the validity of criminal proceedings. The Supreme Court’s decision reinforces the principle that strict adherence to procedural rules is essential to protect the rights of the accused and uphold the integrity of the legal system. The court’s emphasis on obtaining proper authorization before filing an information highlights the importance of due diligence and adherence to legal standards in prosecuting criminal cases.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: MAXIMO and PANGANIBAN v. VILLAPANDO, G.R. No. 214965, April 26, 2017