Philippine National Bank vs. Oaminal

A defect in the authority of the public prosecutor to file an Information is waivable and does not affect the trial court's jurisdiction over the subject matter, as it merely impacts the prosecutor's personality or locus standi; where the accused has withdrawn a prior challenge to the validity of such Informations resulting in the finality of a judgment upholding them, a subsequent challenge is barred by res judicata and the immutability of final judgments.

Petitioner Philippine National Bank (PNB) was the private complainant in six criminal cases for violation of Batas Pambansa Bilang 22 (BP 22) filed against respondent Atty. Henry S. Oaminal before the Office of the City Prosecutor of Ozamiz City. The cases arose from six checks drawn by respondent payable to PNB that were dishonored for insufficient funds. The dispute centers not on the merits of the bouncing-check charges but on a procedural question: whether Informations signed by a prosecutor who had been directed to inhibit himself from the case are valid, and whether the defect in his authority affects the trial court's jurisdiction or is capable of waiver.

Sometime in November 2001, Philippine National Bank (PNB) filed a complaint-affidavit against Atty. Henry S. Oaminal before the Office of the City Prosecutor of Ozamiz City, charging him with six counts of Estafa and violation of Batas Pambansa Bilang 22 (BP 22), docketed as I.S. Nos. 01-11-781 to 786. The charges stemmed from six Metrobank checks issued by respondent in favor of PNB, Ozamiz Branch, represented by Epifania C. Animas, covering various amounts ranging from ₱2,000,000.00 to ₱2,398,883.60, dated between February 28, 2000 and February 28, 2001. Each check was issued in payment of respondent's obligation to PNB but was dishonored upon presentment for the reason "Drawn Against Insufficient Funds" (DAIF), and despite due notice of dishonor and demands, respondent failed to make good the checks or arrange for payment within five banking days.

On January 11, 2002, Prosecutor II Geronimo S. Marave, Jr. recommended the filing of charges for violation of BP 22; the Estafa complaint was dismissed for insufficiency of evidence. Six Informations dated February 12, 2002 were accordingly filed before the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC) of Ozamiz City, Branch 2, docketed as Criminal Case Nos. 5671-MTC to 5676-MTC. Respondent thereafter filed a Motion for Reinvestigation with the Department of Justice (DOJ), prompting Regional State Prosecutor Antonio B. Arellano to issue Regional Order No. 02-023 dated April 16, 2002, directing Prosecutor Marave to inhibit himself and to forward the entire records. The case was assigned to Prosecutor Carlos M. Rubin, and pending resolution of the motion for reinvestigation, the Informations were provisionally withdrawn upon the instance of respondent and Prosecutor Rubin.

Notwithstanding the directive in Regional Order No. 02-023, Prosecutor Marave did not stand down and on June 11, 2002 re-filed the Informations with the MTCC. Respondent moved to quash, and the MTCC granted the motion in its Order dated August 14, 2002, ratiocinating that since Prosecutor Marave had been stripped of authority, the Informations he filed were mere scraps of paper devoid of legal effect. Meanwhile, per DOJ Department Order No. 271 dated August 6, 2002, State Prosecutor Roberto A. Lao was designated Acting City Prosecutor in charge of I.S. Nos. 01-11-781 to 786. On November 12, 2002, State Prosecutor Lao issued a Resolution declaring that formal criminal charges for violation of BP 22 must be filed against respondent, and on the same date sent a letter to the Clerk of Court of the MTCC manifesting his intention to re-file the six Informations signed by Prosecutor Marave. Criminal Case Nos. 5671-MTC to 5676-MTC were thus reinstated.

Respondent challenged the reinstatement through multiple recourses. He first filed an Omnibus Motion and/or Petition with the MTCC seeking dismissal for lack of judicial determination of probable cause, denied on January 6, 2003. He then filed a Petition for Certiorari with the RTC of Ozamiz City (Sp. Civil Case No. 02-03), which dismissed the petition on May 7, 2004. He elevated the matter to the CA (CA-G.R. SP No. 86534) but withdrew the petition, resulting in the RTC Order becoming final and executory per Entry of Judgment dated January 19, 2009. On September 6, 2007, respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss the re-filed Informations with the MTCC, arguing they were invalid because they bore only Prosecutor Marave's signature and had already been quashed. The MTCC denied the motion on November 14, 2007, and the denial was affirmed on reconsideration on January 10, 2008. Respondent then filed a Petition for Certiorari, Prohibition and Mandamus with the RTC (Special Civil Case No. 03-08), which was denied on August 8, 2011, with the motion for reconsideration likewise denied on December 18, 2012. Respondent appealed to the CA, which on June 1, 2015 granted the appeal, set aside the RTC decision, and declared the MTCC proceedings null and void for lack of jurisdiction, reasoning that the Informations were filed by an officer not authorized to do so and that the infirmity could not be cured by silence, acquiescence, or express consent.

• Prior Final Judgment (Res Judicata): Petitioner argued that the CA erred in declaring the Informations void because their validity had already been finally upheld by prior judgment in Sp. Civil Case No. 02-03, which involved the same parties and subject matter.
• Authority to Re-file: Petitioner argued that the CA erred in nullifying the Informations because they were re-filed by and with the prior written authority or approval of the Acting City Prosecutor of Ozamiz City, State Prosecutor Lao.
• Waiver Through Active Participation: Petitioner argued that the CA erred in annulling the trial court's jurisdiction notwithstanding respondent's active participation in the actual proceedings, which constituted waiver of any defect in the Informations.

• Invalidity of Informations: Respondent argued that the re-filed Informations were invalid because they only bore the signature of Prosecutor Marave, who had been stripped of authority, and did not bear the signature of the person authorized to sign them.
• Prior Quashal as Bar: Respondent postured that since the Informations had already been quashed by the MTCC in its Order dated August 14, 2002, the criminal cases had no leg to stand on.
• Lack of Jurisdiction: Respondent maintained that the trial court never acquired jurisdiction over the criminal cases because the Informations were signed by an officer not authorized to do so, and that this infirmity could not be cured by silence, acquiescence, or express consent.

• Prior Final Judgment: Whether the CA erred in declaring the Informations void despite their validity having been already and finally upheld by prior judgment in a previous case involving the same parties and subject matter.
• Authority to Re-file: Whether the CA erred in nullifying the Informations despite their having been re-filed under the prior written authority or approval of the Acting City Prosecutor of Ozamiz City.
• Waiver Through Participation: Whether the CA erred in annulling the trial court's jurisdiction notwithstanding respondent's active participation in the proceedings.

• Prior Final Judgment: Yes. The CA erred because respondent's withdrawal of his first petition (CA-G.R. SP No. 86534) caused the RTC Order affirming the reinstatement of the criminal cases to become final and executory, barring his subsequent challenge under res judicata and the immutability of judgments.
• Authority to Re-file: Yes. The Informations were valid because they were re-filed under the direction of State Prosecutor Lao, who as Acting City Prosecutor had authority over the cases; requiring new Informations bearing his signature would impose a redundant and pointless requirement.
• Waiver Through Participation: Yes. The defect in the prosecutor's authority to file an Information is waivable, as it does not go into the court's jurisdiction over the subject matter but merely affects the prosecutor's locus standi.

• Prior Final Judgment: The Court found that respondent had already challenged the validity of the Informations signed by Prosecutor Marave before the CA on two separate occasions. His first petition, CA-G.R. SP No. 86534, was voluntarily withdrawn, causing the RTC Order dated May 7, 2004 — a judgment on the merits affirming the MTCC's reinstatement of the criminal cases — to attain finality per Entry of Judgment dated January 19, 2009. The withdrawal constituted a waiver of whatever defects the Informations may have had. Under the doctrine of res judicata, specifically the aspect of conclusiveness of judgment, facts and issues actually and directly resolved in a former suit cannot be raised in any future case between the same parties, even if the latter suit involves a different cause of action. The immutability of final judgments further precludes modification of a judgment that has acquired finality. The CA thus transgressed the limits of its authority when it made a pronouncement departing from a matter already the subject of a prior final judgment.

• Authority to Re-file: The Court relied on Villa Gomez vs. People, which held that the lack of authority of a prosecutor to file an Information does not go into the jurisdiction of the court over the subject matter but merely affects the prosecutor's personality or locus standi. Villa Gomez further declared that the authority of a handling prosecutor need not be shown on the face of the Information itself if it is duly established that the provincial, city, or chief state prosecutor approved the underlying Resolution recommending indictment. Here, State Prosecutor Lao, designated as Acting City Prosecutor, himself ordered the reinstatement of the subject Informations. This act was sufficient to vest the trial court with jurisdiction over the subject matter. To require State Prosecutor Lao to refile the exact same Informations with the only difference being the signatures would impose a redundant and pointless requirement on the prosecution.

• Waiver Through Participation: The Court reasoned that if grounds for the quashal of an Information with serious constitutional implications may be waived, then the ground of securing prior written approval or authority from the provincial, city, or chief state prosecutor — which has nothing to do with the Bill of Rights or the trial court's jurisdiction — may also be waived by the accused. The Court cited People vs. Solar for the proposition that failure of the accused to question the insufficiency of an Information constitutes a waivable defect. Logically, if the constitutional right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation may be waived, then the absence of the requirement pertaining to a handling prosecutor's duty to secure prior written authority may likewise be waived. The old rule requiring prior written authority or approval of the provincial or city fiscal, as applied in cases like Cudia vs. Court of Appeals, Romualdez vs. Sandiganbayan, and People vs. Garjin, was expressly and unequivocally abandoned by Villa Gomez.

• Waivability of Defect in Prosecutor's Authority — A defect in the authority of the public prosecutor to file an Information does not go into the jurisdiction of the court over the subject matter; it merely affects the prosecutor's personality or locus standi. Such defect is waivable by the accused, because if the constitutional right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation may be waived, then with more reason may the procedural requirement of prior written authority or approval be waived. The Court applied this doctrine to hold that respondent's withdrawal of his first petition constituted waiver of any defect in the Informations.

• Res Judicata — Conclusiveness of Judgment — Under the doctrine of conclusiveness of judgment (Section 47[c], Rule 39 of the Rules of Court), facts and issues actually and directly resolved in a former suit cannot be raised in any future case between the same parties, even if the latter suit involves a different cause of action. The Court applied this doctrine to bar respondent's second challenge to the validity of the Informations, the issue having been resolved in the prior case that attained finality.

• Immutability of Final Judgments — A decision that has acquired finality becomes immutable and unalterable, precluding modification even if meant to correct erroneous conclusions of fact and law. The Court relied on this principle to hold that the CA could not depart from the matter already resolved in the prior final judgment.

• Authority of Handling Prosecutor — The authority of a handling prosecutor need not be shown on the face of the Information itself if it is duly established that the provincial, city, or chief state prosecutor approved the underlying Resolution recommending the indictment. Requiring the refiling of identical Informations solely to reflect a different signature imposes a redundant and pointless requirement.

• "the lack of authority of the prosecutor to file an Information does not go into the jurisdiction of the court over the subject matter. Rather, the lack of authority merely affects the personality or locus standi of the said prosecutor." — This passage, drawn from Villa Gomez, articulates the ratio decidendi that redefined the effect of a prosecutor's lack of authority on the validity of Informations and the trial court's jurisdiction.

• "if some grounds for the quashal of an Information with serious constitutional implications may be waived, it is with more reason that the ground on securing a prior written approval or authority from the provincial, city or chief state prosecutor, which has nothing to do with the Bill of Rights or with the trial court's jurisdiction to take cognizance of a case, can also be waived by the accused." — This passage establishes the logical and doctrinal basis for the waivability of the prosecutor-authority defect, distinguishing it from constitutional rights that may also be waived.

• "The moment respondent withdrew his petition in CA-G.R. SP No. 86534, he had already waived his right to question the propriety of the subject Informations." — This sentence states the Court's application of waiver and res judicata to the specific facts, tying the respondent's procedural choice to the legal consequence that barred his subsequent challenge.

• Villa Gomez vs. People, G.R. No. 216824, November 10, 2020 — Controlling precedent. The Court expressly relied on and applied its ruling that a prosecutor's lack of authority does not affect the trial court's jurisdiction and that such defect is waivable. This case abandoned the old rule requiring prior written authority or approval shown on the face of the Information.
• People vs. Solar — Cited within Villa Gomez for the proposition that failure of the accused to question the insufficiency of an Information constitutes a waivable defect, supporting the logical inference that the prosecutor-authority requirement is likewise waivable.
• Taisei Shimizu Joint Venture vs. Commission on Audit, G.R. No. 238671, June 2, 2020 — Cited for the principle that when a judgment becomes final and executory, res judicata sets in, and for the definition of res judicata and immutability of final judgments.
• Norkis Trading Corp. vs. Buenavista — Cited within the Taisei Shimizu quotation for the definition of res judicata and its two aspects: bar by prior judgment and conclusiveness of judgment.
• Cudia vs. Court of Appeals, 348 Phil. 190 (1998) — Cited by the CA below for the old rule that lack of authority of the prosecutor affects jurisdiction; effectively overturned by Villa Gomez as applied in this case.
• Romualdez vs. Sandiganbayan, 434 Phil. 670 (2002) — Cited by the CA below for the same old rule; likewise superseded by Villa Gomez.
• People vs. Garjin, 470 Phil. 211 (2004) — Cited by the CA below for the same old rule; likewise superseded by Villa Gomez.

• Section 4, Rule 110, Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure — Defines an Information as an accusation in writing charging a person with an offense, subscribed by the prosecutor and filed with the court. The Court cited this provision to establish the nature and requisites of a valid Information.
• Section 6, Rule 110, Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure — Provides that a complaint or information is sufficient if it states the name of the accused, the designation of the offense, the acts or omissions complained of, the name of the offended party, the approximate date of the commission of the offense, and the place where the offense was committed. The Court cited this in deference to the constitutional right of the accused to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation.
• Section 47(b) and (c), Rule 39, Rules of Court — Provides for the two aspects of res judicata: bar by prior judgment and conclusiveness of judgment. The Court applied the conclusiveness-of-judgment aspect to bar respondent's second challenge to the validity of the Informations.

Peralta, C.J., Caguioa, Carandang, and Zalameda, JJ., concur.