Miaque vs. Patag

An Information filed and signed by a prosecuting officer who lacks authority to do so is fatally defective and deprives the court of jurisdiction over the case. The court does not acquire jurisdiction over the case because there is a defect in the Information, and such infirmity cannot be cured by silence, acquiescence, or even by express consent.

Petitioner Bernie G. Miaque and three co-accused were charged with libel before the Regional Trial Court of Iloilo City. The alleged libelous remarks were directed against private respondent Vicente C. Aragona, who was the Regional State Prosecutor VI of the Department of Justice. The offenses were alleged to have been committed in Iloilo City, and the authority to prosecute crimes within the city was governed by the Charter of the City of Iloilo (Commonwealth Act No. 57) and Presidential Decree No. 1275, which delineated the respective jurisdictions of provincial and city fiscals (now prosecutors).

On January 31, 2000, five Informations for libel were filed in the RTC of Iloilo City, Branch 26, against petitioner Bernie G. Miaque and three co-accused, namely Tony Mauricio, Noel Cabobos, and Rodolfo Divinagracia. In an order dated February 17, 2005, these Informations were quashed for lack of jurisdiction over the offenses charged, specifically because the Informations failed to allege either that private respondent Vicente Aragona actually held office in Iloilo City at the time of the commission of the offenses or that the alleged libelous remarks were printed or first published in Iloilo City.

On June 22, 2005, Assistant Provincial Prosecutor Jerry Marañon issued a resolution recommending the filing of Informations for libel against petitioner and his co-accused. Accordingly, five new Informations for libel, docketed as Criminal Case Nos. 05-61407 to 05-61411, were filed against petitioner and his co-accused in the RTC of Iloilo City, Branch 33, presided by respondent Judge Virgilio M. Patag. The new Informations were similarly worded as those previously quashed but with added allegations: (1) that Aragona, Regional State Prosecutor VI of the Department of Justice, held office at the Hall of Justice, Iloilo City, or (2) that the alleged libelous remarks were written, printed, and published in Iloilo City on the pertinent dates thereof. These Informations were likewise signed and filed by Assistant Provincial Prosecutor Marañon.

In view of the filing of the new Informations, petitioner filed his motions dated August 8, 2005, not to issue warrants of arrest and, if already issued, to recall them and remand the Informations to the Provincial Prosecutor's Office for preliminary investigation. In an order dated August 25, 2005, respondent judge denied petitioner's motions on the ground that petitioner was beyond the court's jurisdiction as he was not under the custody of the court. Petitioner's motion for reconsideration was denied in an order dated September 19, 2005, prompting the filing of the instant petition.

The offenses charged in each of the new Informations were alleged to have been committed in Iloilo City, but the Informations were filed by the Iloilo Provincial Prosecutor's Office. The Court found that the authority to sign and file the new Informations was properly lodged with the Iloilo City Prosecutor's Office, and the Iloilo Provincial Prosecutor's Office was clearly bereft of authority to file the new Informations against petitioner.

• Lack of Preliminary Investigation: Petitioner contended that the Informations were filed without the mandatory preliminary investigation.
• Lack of Authority to File: Petitioner argued that the new Informations were filed by one who had no authority to do so because they were filed by the Iloilo Provincial Prosecutor's Office and not the Iloilo City Prosecutor's Office, and jurisdiction over the subject matter supposedly belonged to the latter.
• Warrants of Arrest: Petitioner assailed the refusal of respondent judge to recall the warrants of arrest issued against him.

• Amendment, Not New Filing: The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), representing the People of the Philippines, contended that the quashed Informations were merely amended to include the allegations that Aragona actually held office in Iloilo City at the time of the commission of the offenses or that the libelous remarks were printed and first published in Iloilo City, and a new preliminary investigation was therefore unnecessary.
• Voluntary Submission to Jurisdiction: On the warrant of arrest, the OSG alleged that the trial court acquired jurisdiction over petitioner in view of the filing of his August 8, 2005 motions, which was tantamount to voluntarily submitting to the jurisdiction of the court.

• Authority to File Informations: Whether the Iloilo Provincial Prosecutor's Office had the authority to file and sign the new Informations against petitioner for offenses committed in Iloilo City.
• Propriety of Certiorari: Whether a direct resort to the Supreme Court in a petition for certiorari was proper despite the hierarchy of courts.

• Authority to File Informations: No. The Iloilo Provincial Prosecutor's Office was bereft of authority to file the new Informations against petitioner. The authority to sign and file the new Informations was properly lodged with the Iloilo City Prosecutor's Office, pursuant to Sections 9 and 11 of Presidential Decree No. 1275 and Section 58 of Commonwealth Act No. 57 (the Charter of the City of Iloilo).
• Propriety of Certiorari: Yes, the direct resort to the Supreme Court was proper. The rule on hierarchy of courts may be relaxed when pure questions of law are raised, as in this case.

• Authority to File Informations: The Court applied Sections 9 and 11 of Presidential Decree No. 1275, which provide that provincial fiscals and city fiscals shall investigate and cause to be investigated all charges of crimes within their respective jurisdictions. Since the alleged acts of libel were committed in Iloilo City, the authority to file and sign the new Informations belonged to the Iloilo City Prosecutor's Office, not the Iloilo Provincial Prosecutor's Office. The Court cited the Charter of the City of Iloilo, which provides that the City Fiscal shall have charge of the prosecution of all crimes in the city. An Information, when required by law to be filed by a public prosecuting officer, cannot be filed by another. Citing People vs. Garfin, the Court held that it is a valid 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 thereof. Questions relating to lack of jurisdiction may be raised at any stage of the proceeding, and an infirmity in the information, such as lack of authority of the officer signing it, cannot be cured by silence, acquiescence, or even by express consent. The common infirmity in the Informations constituted a jurisdictional defect that could not be cured, and there was no point in proceeding under a defective Information that could never be the basis of a valid conviction.
• Propriety of Certiorari: The Court acknowledged that generally, a direct resort to the Supreme Court in a petition for certiorari is incorrect for violating the hierarchy of courts. However, this rule may be relaxed when pure questions of law are raised, as in this case, where the issue was whether the Iloilo Provincial Prosecutor's Office had authority to file the Informations.

• Authority of Prosecuting Officers — The authority to file and sign an Information is determined by the territorial jurisdiction where the offense was committed. Provincial and city prosecutors have authority only within their respective jurisdictions. In this case, since the offenses were committed in Iloilo City, only the Iloilo City Prosecutor's Office had authority to file the Informations, and the Provincial Prosecutor's Office was bereft of such authority.
• Jurisdictional Defect in the Information — An Information filed by an officer lacking authority to do so is fatally defective and deprives the court of jurisdiction over the case. Such an infirmity cannot be cured by silence, acquiescence, or even by express consent, and questions relating to lack of jurisdiction may be raised at any stage of the proceeding.
• Hierarchy of Courts — Generally, petitions for the issuance of extraordinary writs against first level courts should be filed in the RTC, and those against the latter should be filed in the Court of Appeals. However, this rule may be relaxed when pure questions of law are raised.

• "It is a valid 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 thereof. xxx Questions relating to lack of jurisdiction may be raised at any stage of the proceeding. An infirmity in the information, such as lack of authority of the officer signing it, cannot be cured by silence, acquiescence, or even by express consent." — This passage, quoted from People vs. Garfin, articulates the core doctrine that the authority of the officer signing the Information is a jurisdictional requirement that cannot be waived or cured.
• "The authority to sign and file the new Informations is properly lodged with the Iloilo City Prosecutor's Office. The Iloilo Provincial Prosecutor's Office was clearly bereft of authority to file the new Informations against petitioner. An Information, when required by law to be filed by a public prosecuting officer, cannot be filed by another." — This passage states the Court's direct ruling on the central issue of the case, establishing that the filing of an Information by an unauthorized officer is a fatal defect.
• "The common infirmity in the Informations constituted a jurisdictional defect that could not be cured. There was no point in proceeding under a defective Information that could never be the basis of a valid conviction." — This passage explains the consequence of the jurisdictional defect, justifying the dismissal of the cases without prejudice.

• People vs. Garfin, G.R. No. 153176, 29 March 2004, 426 SCRA 393 — Controlling precedent cited for the doctrine that a valid information signed by a competent officer confers jurisdiction on the court, and that an infirmity in the information, such as lack of authority of the officer signing it, cannot be cured by silence, acquiescence, or even by express consent.
• Dela Chica vs. Sandiganbayan, 462 Phil. 712, 723 (2003) — Cited for the proposition that there is no point in proceeding under a defective Information that could never be the basis of a valid conviction.
• Pacoy vs. Cajigal, G.R. No. 157472, 28 September 2007, 534 SCRA 338 — Cited for the general rule on the hierarchy of courts.
• Chavez vs. National Housing Authority, G.R. No. 164527, 15 August 2007, 530 SCRA 235 — Cited for the rule that petitions for extraordinary writs against first level courts should be filed in the RTC and those against the latter should be filed in the Court of Appeals.
• Morales vs. Skills International Company, G.R. No. 149285, 30 August 2006, 500 SCRA 186 — Cited for the definition of a question of law.

• Sections 9 and 11, Presidential Decree No. 1275 — These provisions establish the offices of provincial fiscals and city fiscals and define their duties and functions, providing that they shall investigate crimes within their respective jurisdictions. The Court applied these provisions to determine that the Iloilo City Prosecutor's Office, not the Provincial Prosecutor's Office, had authority over offenses committed in Iloilo City.
• Section 58, Commonwealth Act No. 57 (Charter of the City of Iloilo) — This provision grants the City Fiscal charge of the prosecution of all crimes in the City of Iloilo. The Court cited this provision to confirm that the authority to file the Informations belonged to the Iloilo City Prosecutor's Office.
• Section 9, Chapter 2, Title III, Book IV, Administrative Code of 1987 — This provision renames Provincial and City Fiscal's Offices as Provincial/City Prosecution Service, headed by Provincial or City Prosecutors. The Court noted this provision to clarify the current nomenclature of the prosecuting officers.

Antonio T. Carpio (Acting Chairperson), Ma. Alicia Austria-Martinez, Conchita Carpio Morales, and Teresita J. Leonardo-de Castro concurred in the decision.