Maximo and Panganiban vs. Villapando

An information filed by an assistant city prosecutor without prior written authority or delegation from the city prosecutor is jurisdictionally defective and must be quashed; the defect cannot be cured by a bare certification of authority in the information itself, by the presumption of regularity, or by subsequent ratification through the city prosecutor's denial of a motion for reconsideration.

Villapando is the assignee of Enhanced Electronics and Communications Services, Inc. of Condominium Unit No. 2821 and a parking slot at the Legazpi Place in Makati City. Maximo and Panganiban are directors of ASB Realty Corporation (now St. Francis Square Realty Corp.), the developer of the condominium project. The dispute originated when Villapando filed a criminal complaint against Maximo, Panganiban, and other ASB officers for violations of Sections 17, 20, and 25 of Presidential Decree No. 957 (the Subdivision and Condominium Buyer's Protective Decree), which was dismissed by the OCP-Makati on the ground of ASB's good faith due to liquidity problems and a pending rehabilitation petition with the SEC. Maximo and Panganiban thereafter filed separate counter-charges for perjury against Villapando, alleging that he falsely stated in his complaint-affidavit that they were officers and directors of ASB at the time the Deed of Sale was executed on February 28, 1997, when they were allegedly minors at that time.

Villapando is the assignee of Enhanced Electronics and Communications Services, Inc. of Condominium Unit No. 2821 and a parking slot at the Legazpi Place in Makati City. Maximo and Panganiban are directors of ASB Realty Corporation (now St. Francis Square Realty Corp.), the developer of the condominium project. On November 23, 2010, Villapando filed a complaint before the Office of the City Prosecutor of Makati City against Maximo, Panganiban, and other directors and officers of ASB for violations of Sections 17, 20, and 25 of Presidential Decree No. 957, the Subdivision and Condominium Buyer's Protective Decree, alleging failure to register contracts to sell and deeds of sale, failure to complete the project on time, and failure to issue title over the condominium unit. That complaint was dismissed by the OCP-Makati on July 12, 2011 on the ground that ASB had encountered liquidity problems prior to the estimated date of completion and had instituted a petition for rehabilitation with the SEC, demonstrating good faith.

On February 24, 2011, Maximo filed a complaint for Perjury, Incriminating Innocent Person, and Unjust Vexation against Villapando, docketed as NPS-No. XV-05-INV-11-B-00509 and assigned to ACP Evangeline Viudez-Canobas. On October 10, 2011, Panganiban filed a separate complaint for Perjury and Unjust Vexation against Villapando, docketed as NPS-No. XV-05-INV-11-C-00601 and assigned to ACP Benjamin S. Vermug, Jr. The common allegation in both complaints was that Villapando committed perjury when he alleged in his complaint-affidavit that Maximo and Panganiban were officers and directors of ASB at the time the Deed of Sale was executed between ASB and Enhanced Electronics on February 28, 1997, when in fact they were not even employees of ASB in 1997 and were both minors at that time.

On August 3, 2011, ACP Canobas issued a Resolution finding probable cause against Villapando for perjury but dismissing the complaints for unjust vexation and incriminating innocent person. The Resolution was approved by SACP Christopher Garvida. An Information for Perjury dated July 26, 2011 was filed before METC, Branch 67, Makati City, signed by ACP Canobas and sworn to before ACP Vermug, Jr. Meanwhile, on January 13, 2012, ACP Vermug, Jr. issued a separate Resolution finding probable cause for perjury based on Panganiban's complaint, also approved by SACP Garvida, who recommended the filing of an Amended Information to include Panganiban as one of the complainants.

Villapando moved to quash the Information on October 14, 2011, asserting that the person who filed it had no authority to do so because neither the Information nor the Resolution finding probable cause bore the approval of City Prosecutor Feliciano Aspi, contrary to Section 4, Rule 112 of the Rules of Court. He filed a Supplemental Motion to Quash on October 20, 2011 on the additional ground that the facts charged did not constitute an offense, arguing that violations of Sections 17, 20, and 25 of PD 957 are continuing crimes. The METC denied the motion to quash on November 11, 2011, relying on the presumption of regularity and finding substantial compliance through ACP Canobas's certification in the Information that the filing was with the prior authority of the City Prosecutor. The METC also denied Villapando's motion for reconsideration on February 11, 2013 and granted the prosecution's motion to amend the Information.

The Amended Information was signed by ACP Canobas and sworn to before ACP Vermug, Jr. It charged Villapando with perjury under Article 183 of the Revised Penal Code for falsely swearing in his complaint-affidavit that Maximo and Panganiban were officers of ASB Realty Corporation who conspired with other officers in violating PD 957, when in truth they were not employees or officers of ASB at the time the contract to sell was made and were still underage. The Amended Information bore a certification by ACP Vermug, Jr. stating that the filing was with the prior authority or approval of the City Prosecutor, but no copy of the purported Office Order No. 32 — the alleged basis for such delegation of authority — was presented in the records.

Villapando elevated the case to the RTC via a petition for certiorari and prohibition, which was denied on May 30, 2013. The RTC held that the presumption of regularity had not been disputed by the City Prosecutor and that Villapando should have gone to trial and appealed in case of conviction. The CA reversed the RTC on June 13, 2014, finding that no copy of Office Order No. 32 was in the records and that there was no valid delegation of authority from the City Prosecutor to the Assistant City Prosecutor. Both parties moved for reconsideration, which the CA denied on October 16, 2014. Both parties then filed separate petitions for review on certiorari before the Supreme Court, which were consolidated on July 13, 2015.

G.R. No. 214925 (Maximo and Panganiban):

• Wrong Remedy: Maximo and Panganiban argued that the denial of a petition for certiorari is a final order and the proper remedy is appeal, not another petition for certiorari; they also contended that Villapando failed to file the requisite motion for reconsideration with the RTC before filing his petition with the CA.
• Failure to Implead the People: They asserted that the petition should have been dismissed for failure to implead the People of the Philippines as an indispensable party before the RTC and the CA.
• False Verification: They pointed out that the petition filed with the CA was prepared on July 31, 2013, but the verification was executed on June 20, 2013, or forty-one days prior to the preparation of the petition.
• Forum Shopping: They averred that Villapando committed forum shopping because the issues raised before the CA were the same issues brought before the DOJ on a petition for review.
• Presumption of Regularity: They contended that the Information bears a certification that the filing had the prior authority or approval of the City Prosecutor, and that the non-presentation of Office Order No. 32 is immaterial because public officers enjoy the presumption of regularity in the performance of their functions.
• Ratification by Subsequent Order: They argued that the City Prosecutor's Order dated February 21, 2012, denying Villapando's motion for partial reconsideration, in effect affirmed the validity of the Information filed.

G.R. No. 214965 (Villapando):

• Continuing Offenses: Villapando asserted that violations of Sections 17, 20, and 25 of PD 957 are committed not upon execution of the contract to sell but thereafter, and continue to be committed until full compliance with the law.
• No Perjury Committed: He argued that he never alleged in his complaint that Maximo and Panganiban were employees or officers of ASB at the time of the execution of the contract to sell; they became officers only in 2010, as evidenced by the Articles of Incorporation he attached to his complaint.
• Need for Substantive Resolution: He maintained that the CA should have resolved the substantive legal issue of whether violations of PD 957 are continuing offenses to avoid circuitous and vexatious litigation.

G.R. No. 214925 (Villapando, as respondent):

• Adequacy of Certiorari: Villapando countered that under the circumstances, appeal was not a plain, speedy, and adequate remedy, hence certiorari was proper; he emphasized that the criminal complaints were filed in retaliation for his earlier complaint against Maximo and Panganiban.
• Proper Verification: He stated that his counsel explained the contents of the draft petition to him, and he signed the verification in advance because of a scheduled trip abroad.
• People Represented: He emphasized that the People was represented by the Makati City Prosecution Office before the RTC and by the OSG before the CA, and were duly furnished copies of all pleadings.

G.R. No. 214965 (Maximo and Panganiban, as respondents; OSG):

• Misconstrued Continuing Crimes: Maximo and Panganiban argued that Villapando misconstrued the concept of continuing crimes, which requires a series of acts stemming from a single criminal resolution; the alleged violations of PD 957 consist of omissions that cannot constitute a continuing crime.
• Matter of Defense: They stated that whether violations of PD 957 are continuing offenses is a matter of defense that cannot be raised in a motion to quash.
• Prescription: They stressed that Villapando's complaint against ASB had already prescribed, as ruled by the DOJ in its Resolution dated December 12, 2014.
• No Actual Case (OSG): The OSG contended that unless and until the City Prosecutor files a new information for perjury, there would be no actual case to speak of and no need for the court to resolve the issue regarding the nature of the violation of the provisions of PD 957.

• Authority to File Information: Whether the Amended Information for perjury was validly filed by the Assistant City Prosecutor without prior written authority or delegation from the City Prosecutor.
• Propriety of Certiorari: Whether certiorari under Rule 65 was the proper remedy to assail the denial of a motion to quash the Information.
• Forum Shopping: Whether Villapando committed forum shopping by filing a petition for review before the DOJ and a petition for certiorari before the CA involving the same parties, facts, and issues.
• Indispensable Party: Whether the failure to implead the People of the Philippines as a respondent warranted the dismissal of the petition.
• Verification: Whether the verification of the petition was defective.
• Motion for Reconsideration: Whether the non-filing of a motion for reconsideration of the RTC Decision was fatal to Villapando's petition for certiorari before the CA.
• Continuing Offenses: Whether violations of Sections 17, 20, and 25 of PD 957 are continuing offenses and whether the allegations in the Information constitute the offense of perjury.
• Actual Case or Controversy: Whether the Court should resolve the substantive issue of whether violations of PD 957 are continuing offenses in the absence of a pending information.

• Authority to File Information: No. The Amended Information was defective because no prior written authority or delegation from the City Prosecutor was shown in the records; the bare certification in the Information was insufficient, and the defect was jurisdictional.
• Propriety of Certiorari: Yes, certiorari was proper. The METC committed grave abuse of discretion in denying the motion to quash, as the issue went to the very authority of the court over the case; compelling Villapando to stand trial under a defective Information would expose him to the injuries he sought to avoid.
• Forum Shopping: No. Filing an appeal with the DOJ and a petition for certiorari with the CA did not constitute forum shopping because the DOJ's findings would not be binding upon the courts.
• Indispensable Party: No dismissal warranted. The People was represented by the Makati City Prosecution Office before the RTC and by the OSG before the CA, and were duly furnished copies of all pleadings.
• Verification: Not defective. Villapando adequately explained the timing of the verification's execution relative to the petition's preparation.
• Motion for Reconsideration: Not fatal. The Court has recognized exceptions to the requirement of filing a motion for reconsideration, and technicalities may be set aside when strict application would frustrate justice.
• Continuing Offenses: Not resolved. There was no actual case or controversy to justify resolution of whether violations of PD 957 are continuing offenses, since the Amended Information had been quashed and no new information had been filed.
• Actual Case or Controversy: No. The Court's power of review is limited to actual cases and controversies; resolving the substantive issue would pre-empt the outcome of a potential trial should a new information be filed.

• Authority to File Information: Section 4, Rule 112 of the 2000 Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure mandates 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. The Court rejected the argument that the certification in the Information stating that the filing was with the prior authority of the City Prosecutor was sufficient. Citing People vs. Garfin, Turingan vs. Garfin, and Tolentino vs. Paqueo, the Court held that similarly-worded certifications have been uniformly rejected where the officers filing the information failed to show they obtained prior written authority from any authorized officer. While valid delegation is recognized — as in Quisay vs. People, where Office Order No. 32 was actually presented and shown to delegate authority to designated review prosecutors — in this case, no copy of Office Order No. 32 was found in the records. The Court could not take judicial notice of its contents. Without proof of prior written delegation, the presumption of regularity could not be accorded. The approval of an assistant city prosecutor cannot be equated to that of the city prosecutor. The defect was jurisdictional and could not be cured by silence, waiver, acquiescence, or even express consent, pursuant to People vs. Garfin and Villa vs. Ibañez. The City Prosecutor's subsequent denial of Villapando's motion for partial reconsideration did not cure the defect, as the jurisdictional infirmity in the Information could not be ratified after the fact.

• Propriety of Certiorari: While the general rule is that certiorari is not the proper remedy to assail the denial of a motion to quash — the accused should proceed to trial and appeal in case of conviction — the Court recognized exceptions, including when the court issued the order with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. The METC committed grave abuse of discretion because the issue of the prosecutor's authority to file the Information went to the very foundation of the court's jurisdiction. A finding of lack of authority necessarily invalidates the Information and ousts the court of jurisdiction. Forcing Villapando to undergo trial under a defective Information that could never be the basis of a valid conviction would be self-defeating. The Court also noted that Villapando's liberty was already in jeopardy, justifying the resort to certiorari. The RTC's decision, rendered in the exercise of its original jurisdiction, was a final order appealable to the CA under Section 2, Rule 41, but the Court allowed exceptions for good cause.

• Forum Shopping: Forum shopping exists when a party institutes two or more suits in different courts to obtain favorable rulings on the same causes and reliefs. The Court held that filing an appeal with the DOJ and a petition for certiorari with the CA did not constitute forum shopping because the DOJ's findings would not be binding upon the courts. Citing Flores vs. Secretary Gonzales, the Court explained that the trial court is not bound to adopt the resolution of the Secretary of Justice and must independently evaluate the merits of the case. The DOJ ruling would merely be advisory and would not constitute res judicata, nor could it conflict with the court's resolution on the propriety of dismissing the case.

• Indispensable Party: The purpose of impleading the People of the Philippines is to enable the public prosecutor or the Solicitor General to comment on the petitions. In this case, the People was represented by the Makati City Prosecution Office before the RTC and by the OSG before the CA, and were duly furnished copies of all pleadings. The failure to formally implead the People was therefore not fatal.

• Verification: Villapando adequately explained that his counsel explained the contents of the draft petition to him, and he signed the verification in advance because of a scheduled trip abroad. The Court found no defect in the verification.

• Motion for Reconsideration: While a motion for reconsideration is generally a condition precedent to certiorari, the Court has recognized exceptions and cannot unduly uphold technicalities at the expense of a just resolution. Section 6, Rule 1 of the Rules of Court mandates liberal construction of rules to secure a just, speedy, and inexpensive disposition. Technicalities may be set aside when strict application would frustrate rather than promote justice.

• Continuing Offenses / Actual Case or Controversy: The Court's power of review is limited to actual cases and controversies involving parties with adverse legal claims. An actual case or controversy involves a conflict of legal rights susceptible of judicial resolution — it is definite, concrete, and admits of specific relief. The Court agreed with the OSG that unless and until the City Prosecutor files a new information for perjury, there is no actual case to speak of. Resolving whether Sections 17, 20, and 25 of PD 957 are continuing offenses would pre-empt the outcome of a trial before the proper court should an information be re-filed. The Court noted that Villapando had already raised the same arguments in a separate petition, G.R. No. 216546, questioning the DOJ Secretary's ruling. The Court upheld the CA's ruling that since the Amended Information was defective on its face, there was no need to resolve the substantive issue.

• Prior Written Authority Requirement (Section 4, Rule 112) — 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, chief state prosecutor, or Ombudsman or his deputy. A bare certification in the Information stating that the filing was with prior authority is insufficient; there must be actual proof of delegation, such as a written office order, presented in the records. The defect is jurisdictional and cannot be cured by silence, waiver, acquiescence, or even express consent. The approval of an assistant city prosecutor cannot be equated to that of the city prosecutor.

• Certiorari as Exceptional Remedy for Denial of Motion to Quash — While the general rule is that the denial of a motion to quash is an interlocutory order not subject to certiorari, the Court recognizes exceptions: (a) when the court issued the order without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion; (b) when the interlocutory order is patently erroneous and appeal would not afford adequate and expeditious relief; (c) in the interest of a more enlightened and substantial justice; (d) to promote public welfare and public policy; and (e) when the cases have attracted nationwide attention. When the issue goes to the very authority of the court over the case — such as the lack of authority of the filing prosecutor — certiorari is proper because the defect ousts the court of jurisdiction.

• No Forum Shopping Between DOJ Appeal and Certiorari — Filing a petition for review with the DOJ and a petition for certiorari with the CA involving the same parties and issues does not constitute forum shopping because the DOJ's findings are not binding upon the courts. The trial court must independently evaluate the merits of the case and is not bound to adopt the DOJ's resolution.

• Actual Case or Controversy Requirement — The Court's power of review is limited to actual cases and controversies involving parties with adverse legal claims. An actual case or controversy is definite and concrete, touching the legal relations of parties having adverse legal interests, and admits of specific relief. The Court will not resolve substantive legal questions when no pending information exists, as doing so would pre-empt the outcome of a potential trial.

• "Clearly, we see nothing in the record which demonstrates the prior written delegation or authority given by the city prosecutor to the assistant city prosecutor to approve the filing of the information. For the lack of such prior written authority, the inescapable result is that the court did not acquire jurisdiction over the case because there is a defect in the Information." — This passage articulates the ratio decidendi on the jurisdictional consequence of filing an information without prior written authority from the city prosecutor.

• "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." — This formulation, quoting People vs. Garfin and Villa vs. Ibañez, establishes the doctrinal rule that the defect in authority is jurisdictional and incurable by ratification.

• "to deny petitioner the relief of a writ of certiorari and force him to go to trial would be self-defeating. To require Petitioner to go to the prescribed route of undergoing trial and filing an appeal thereafter, will undoubtly expose him to the injuries which he seeks to promptly avoid by filing the instant Petition." — This passage justifies the exception to the general rule against certiorari for interlocutory orders, specifically when the Information is jurisdictionally defective.

• "This Court's power of review may be awesome, but it is limited to actual cases and controversies dealing with parties having adversely legal claims, to be exercised after full opportunity of argument by the parties, and limited further to the constitutional question raised or the very lis mota presented." — This defines the constitutional limitation on judicial power that precluded the Court from resolving the substantive PD 957 issue.

• People vs. Garfin, 470 Phil. 211 (2004) — Controlling precedent holding that an information filed by an officer without requisite authority constitutes a jurisdictional infirmity that cannot be cured by silence, waiver, acquiescence, or express consent. Followed and applied to quash the Amended Information.
• Turingan vs. Garfin, 549 Phil. 903 (2007) — Followed; similarly-worded certifications of prior authority were rejected as insufficient where the filing officer failed to show prior written authority.
• Tolentino vs. Paqueo, 551 Phil. 355 (2007) — Followed; same principle rejecting bare certifications of authority in informations.
• Quisay vs. People, G.R. No. 216920, January 13, 2016, 781 SCRA 98 — Distinguished; recognized valid delegation of authority where the city prosecutor issued Office Order No. 32, which was actually presented and shown to delegate authority to designated review prosecutors. In the present case, no copy of Office Order No. 32 was found in the records.
• Villa vs. Ibañez, 88 Phil. 402 (1951) — Cited within People vs. Garfin for the principle that an infirmity in the information cannot be cured by silence, acquiescence, or even express consent.
• Flores vs. Secretary Gonzales, et al., 640 Phil. 694 (2010) — Followed on the issue of forum shopping; held that filing a petition for certiorari with the CA while a petition for review is pending with the DOJ does not constitute forum shopping because the DOJ's findings are not binding on the courts.
• Zamoranos vs. People, et al., 665 Phil. 447 (2011) — Followed; established that certiorari is not the proper remedy for denial of a motion to quash, but recognized exceptions, and defined the requisites for certiorari.
• Galzote vs. Briones, G.R. No. 673 Phil. 165 (2011) — Followed; certiorari is appropriate when the lower court acted without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion, and appeal would not afford adequate and expeditious relief.
• Romualdez vs. Sandiganbayan, 434 Phil. 670 (2002) — Cited for the principle that the issue of the prosecutor's authority goes to the very authority of the court over the case.
• Cobarrubias vs. People, 612 Phil. 984 (2009) — Cited on the requirement to implead the People of the Philippines in criminal cases and the purpose thereof.
• Lozano vs. Nograles, 607 Phil. 334 (2009) — Cited on the limitation of judicial power to actual cases and controversies.
• David vs. Macapagal Arroyo, 522 Phil. 705 (2006) — Cited for the definition of an actual case or controversy.

• Section 4, Rule 112, 2000 Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure — Requires prior written authority or approval of the provincial or city prosecutor, chief state prosecutor, or Ombudsman or his deputy before a complaint or information may be filed. Applied as the controlling provision rendering the Amended Information defective for lack of proof of such prior written authority.
• Section 3(d), Rule 117, Rules of Court — Provides that the accused may move to quash the information on the ground that the officer who filed it had no authority to do so. Applied as the basis for quashing the Amended Information.
• Section 4, Rule 117, Rules of Court — Mandates that if the motion to quash is based on a defect in the complaint or information that can be cured by amendment, the court shall order that an amendment be made. The Court noted that had the prosecutor or the METC judge been aware of this provision, the defect could have been cured before arraignment.
• Section 1(c), Rule 41, Rules of Court — Provides that no appeal may be taken from an interlocutory order. Cited in explaining why certiorari, not appeal, was the remedy sought, and why the general rule disallows certiorari for interlocutory orders.
• Section 2, Rule 41, Rules of Court — Provides that cases decided by the RTC in the exercise of its original jurisdiction must be appealed to the CA. Cited in the procedural discussion.
• Section 5, Rule 110, Rules of Criminal Procedure — States that all criminal actions are prosecuted under the direction and control of the public prosecutor. Applied in holding that the People was sufficiently represented.
• Section 6, Rule 1, Rules of Court — Provides that rules shall be liberally construed to promote their objective of securing a just, speedy, and inexpensive disposition of every action and proceeding. Applied in excusing the non-filing of a motion for reconsideration.
• Sections 17, 20, and 25, Presidential Decree No. 957 (Subdivision and Condominium Buyer's Protective Decree) — Section 17 requires registration of contracts to sell and deeds of sale; Section 20 requires completion of the project within one year from issuance of license; Section 25 requires delivery of title to the buyer upon full payment. These provisions were the subject of Villapando's original complaint against Maximo and Panganiban and formed the basis of the perjury charge, but the Court declined to resolve whether violations thereof are continuing offenses.
• Article 183, Revised Penal Code — Defines the crime of perjury. The Amended Information charged Villapando with perjury under this article for falsely swearing in his complaint-affidavit.

Carpio (Chairperson), Mendoza, Leonen, and Martires, JJ., concurred.