People vs. Garfin

An information filed by an investigating prosecutor without the prior written authority or approval of the provincial or city prosecutor or chief state prosecutor constitutes a jurisdictional defect that is not waived by the accused's failure to move to quash before pleading. A valid information signed by a competent officer is the requisite that confers jurisdiction on the court over the case, and an infirmity in the information, such as lack of authority of the officer signing it, cannot be cured by silence, acquiescence, or even express consent.

Serafin Saballegue was charged with violation of the Social Security Act for failure to remit premiums. State Prosecutor Romulo SJ. Tolentino filed the information, certifying that it was filed with the prior authority and approval of the Regional State Prosecutor. After pleading not guilty, the accused moved to dismiss on the ground that the information lacked the prior written authority or approval of the City Prosecutor as required by Section 4, Rule 112 of the Revised Rules of Court. The trial court granted the motion, ruling that the lack of such approval deprived it of jurisdiction over the case, and denied the prosecution's motion for reconsideration for being a mere scrap of paper.

• The Charge: On June 22, 2001, private respondent Serafin Saballegue was charged with violation of Section 22(a) in relation to Sections 19(b) and 28(e) of Republic Act No. 8282 (Social Security Act) for willful failure to remit SSS premiums.
• The Information: State Prosecutor Romulo SJ. Tolentino filed the information, which contained a certification stating that the filing was with the "prior authority and approval of the Regional State Prosecutor."
• Motion to Dismiss: After entering a plea of not guilty, the accused filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that the information was filed without the prior written authority or approval of the City Prosecutor of Naga City, as mandated by Section 4, Rule 112.
• Regional State Prosecutor's Directive: The prosecution opposed the motion, citing a memorandum from Regional State Prosecutor Santiago M. Turingan directing city and provincial prosecutors to inhibit from SSS cases and authorizing the Special Prosecution Team to dispose of the cases without the Regional State Prosecutor's approval. However, the City Prosecutor of Naga City did not append the notation of inhibition to the information.
• RTC Rulings: The trial court granted the motion to dismiss, holding that the lack of the City Prosecutor's approval was a jurisdictional defect. The prosecution's motion for reconsideration was subsequently denied for being a mere scrap of paper due to the lack of a notice of hearing.

• Dismissal Without Basis: Petitioner maintained that the trial court dismissed the information without the required supporting factual and legal bases.
• Presumption of Regularity and Permissive Interpretation: Petitioner argued that the trial court deliberately ignored the presumption of regularity in favor of the prosecution. The word "may" in Section 4, Rule 112 is permissive, not mandatory, and prior written approval is not required in instances where the Regional State Prosecutor has directed city prosecutors to inhibit.
• Judicially Known Inhibition: Petitioner contended that the trial court deliberately ignored the judicially known inhibition of the City Prosecutor and settled jurisprudence on the matter.
• Interference with Executive Function: Petitioner asserted that the trial court gravely abused its discretion by interfering with the purely executive function of filing an information by ruling on the authority of the filing officer.

• Timeliness: Respondent argued that the petition was filed out of time.
• Lack of Authority to Sign: Respondent countered that the special State Prosecutor is only authorized to conduct preliminary investigation and prosecution of SSS cases, not to sign the information.
• No Express Inhibition: Respondent maintained that the City Prosecutor did not expressly inhibit himself from handling SSS cases or signing the information. (The OSG, commenting for the respondent, agreed that dismissal was mandated under Section 4, Rule 112).

• Procedural Timeliness: Whether the petition was filed out of time considering the pro forma motion for reconsideration.
• Authority to File Information: Whether the prior written authority and approval of the city or provincial prosecutor is necessary for a state prosecutor to file an information, and whether the Regional State Prosecutor's directive of inhibition suffices.
• Waiver of Jurisdictional Defect: Whether the lack of prior written approval of the city or provincial prosecutor in the filing of an information is a defect that is waived if not raised as an objection before arraignment.

• Procedural Timeliness: The petition was filed within the reglementary period. The 15th day from receipt of the dismissal order fell on Good Friday, moving the deadline to the next working day. Furthermore, the rule that a pro forma motion for reconsideration does not toll the period for appeal applies to Rule 37 and Rule 45, not to a Rule 65 petition. Under Section 4, Rule 65, the 60-day period is counted from notice of the denial of the motion.
• Authority to File Information: Prior written authority and approval of the city, provincial, or chief state prosecutor is mandatory. The word "may" in Section 4, Rule 112 must be read in context with the preceding paragraph, which mandates that the investigating prosecutor forward the record to the provincial or city prosecutor. The Regional State Prosecutor's directive for city prosecutors to inhibit is invalid because, under P.D. No. 1275, the Regional State Prosecutor exercises only administrative supervision, not control, over city prosecutors, and cannot direct them to inhibit. Moreover, the Regional State Prosecutor cannot appoint a special prosecutor with independent authority to file informations without the Secretary of Justice's directive, which was absent here.
• Waiver of Jurisdictional Defect: The lack of prior written approval is a jurisdictional defect that is not waived by the accused's failure to move to quash before pleading. A valid information signed by a competent officer confers jurisdiction on the court over the case. The lack of authority of the filing officer prevents the court from acquiring jurisdiction over the case. This principle, established in Villa v. Ibañez, subsists alongside the enumerated exceptions to waiver under Section 9, Rule 117 of the 2000 Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, as the rule-makers did not intend to abandon the Villa doctrine.

• Jurisdiction over the case — While jurisdiction over the subject matter is conferred by law, jurisdiction over the case is invested by the act of the plaintiff and attaches upon the filing of the complaint or information. A court does not acquire jurisdiction over the case until its jurisdiction is invoked by the filing of a valid information signed by a competent officer.
• Administrative Supervision vs. Supervision and Control — Administrative supervision is limited to generally overseeing operations and ensuring effective management without interference in day-to-day activities. Supervision and control includes the authority to act directly, direct the performance of duty, and review, approve, reverse, or modify acts of subordinate officials. The Regional State Prosecutor exercises only administrative supervision over provincial and city prosecutors and thus cannot direct them to inhibit from cases.
• Potestas delegata non potest delegari — What has been delegated cannot be redelegated. The Regional State Prosecutor, being a mere subordinate and not the alter ego of the Secretary of Justice, cannot redelegate the authority to file informations to a special prosecutor without the Secretary's directive.

• "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 of the accusation. In consonance with this view, an infirmity of the nature noted in the information cannot be cured by silence, acquiescence, or even by express consent."
• "While a court may have jurisdiction over the subject matter, like a violation of the SSS Law, it does not acquire jurisdiction over the case itself until its jurisdiction is invoked with the filing of the information."

• Villa v. Ibañez, 88 Phil. 402 (1951) — Controlling precedent. Established that an information filed by an unauthorized officer fails to confer jurisdiction over the case, and this jurisdictional defect cannot be cured by silence, acquiescence, or express consent, nor is it waived by failure to move to quash before pleading.
• Cruz, Jr. v. Sandiganbayan, 194 SCRA 474 (1991) — Followed. Applied Villa to hold that an information filed by the PCGG, which lacked authority to investigate the specific crime charged, was null and void and could not be cured by amendment.
• Romualdez v. Sandiganbayan, 385 SCRA 436 (2002) — Followed. Reiterated that an information filed by an unauthorized party is fatally flawed and incurable.
• Cudia v. Court of Appeals, 284 SCRA 173 (1998) — Followed. Invalidated an information filed by a City Prosecutor who lacked territorial jurisdiction, reaffirming that a valid information by a competent officer is required to confer jurisdiction.
• Galvez v. Court of Appeals, 237 SCRA 685 (1994) — Distinguished. In Galvez, the special prosecutors were acting under the directive of the Secretary of Justice, unlike in the present case.
• Sanchez v. Demetriou, 227 SCRA 627 (1993) — Distinguished. Similar to Galvez, the special prosecutors therein were appointed in accordance with law and under the directive of the Secretary of Justice.

• Section 4, Rule 112, Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure — Requires 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. Applied to invalidate the information filed by the State Prosecutor lacking the City Prosecutor's approval.
• Section 3(d) and Section 9, Rule 117, Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure — Section 3(d) provides that lack of authority of the filing officer is a ground to quash. Section 9 provides that failure to move to quash before pleading constitutes a waiver of objections, except those based on paragraphs (a), (b), (g), and (i) of Section 3. Interpreted in relation to Villa v. Ibañez to mean that lack of authority of the filing officer remains a jurisdictional defect not subject to waiver despite not being explicitly listed in the Section 9 exceptions.
• Section 8, Presidential Decree No. 1275 — Defines the functions of the Regional State Prosecutor, limiting power over provincial and city fiscals to "immediate administrative supervision." Applied to hold that the Regional State Prosecutor cannot direct city prosecutors to inhibit from cases.
• Section 15, Presidential Decree No. 1275 — Provides that Special Counsels shall be appointed by the Secretary of Justice upon recommendation of the provincial or city fiscal and regional state prosecutors. Applied to show that the Regional State Prosecutor cannot unilaterally appoint a special prosecutor with authority to file informations independently.

Quisumbing, Austria-Martinez, Callejo, Sr., and Tinga.