Tolentino vs. Paqueo

A State Prosecutor designated by a Regional State Prosecutor is not authorized to file an Information without the prior written approval of the Provincial or City Prosecutor, the Chief State Prosecutor, or the Ombudsman or his deputy, the express enumeration of these approving officers in Sec. 4, Rule 112 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure excluding the Regional State Prosecutor by implication.

Private respondent Benedict Dy Tecklo, owner/proprietor of Qualistronic Builders, was charged with violation of Sec. 22(a) in relation to Sec. 28(e) of Republic Act No. 8282 for failing to remit SSS premiums despite demand. Petitioner State Prosecutor Romulo SJ. Tolentino filed the Information, certifying that the filing was with the prior authority and approval of the Regional State Prosecutor. The Information lacked the written approval of the City Prosecutor of Naga City, the situs of the crime.

• The Charge: On June 22, 2001, petitioner State Prosecutor Romulo SJ. Tolentino filed an Information charging private respondent Benedict Dy Tecklo with violation of Sec. 22(a) in relation to Sec. 28(e) of Republic Act No. 8282 for failing to remit SSS premiums despite demand. The Information contained a certification by Tolentino that the filing was with the prior authority and approval of the Regional State Prosecutor.
• The Motion to Quash: Before arraignment, private respondent moved to quash the Information on the sole ground that State Prosecutor Tolentino, not being the City or Provincial Prosecutor, lacked the legal personality and authority to commence prosecution.
• The Opposition: State Prosecutor Tolentino opposed the motion, asserting that he was designated as Special Prosecutor for SSS cases by Regional State Prosecutor Santiago M. Turingan via Regional Order No. 97-024A; that Chief State Prosecutor Jovencito Zuño confirmed such authority via letter opining that prosecutors-designate do not need the approval of the Regional, Provincial, or City Prosecutor; that the Administrative Code of 1987 vests the Regional State Prosecutor with authority to designate Special Prosecutors; and that the City Prosecutor had been inhibited by the private complainant.
• The RTC Rulings: The RTC granted the Motion to Quash on August 24, 2001, ruling that the designation by the Regional State Prosecutor did not exempt Tolentino from complying with Sec. 4, Rule 112 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, which requires prior written authority or approval from the Provincial or City Prosecutor, Chief State Prosecutor, or Ombudsman. The RTC held that the Regional State Prosecutor is not among those exclusively mentioned by the Rules to approve the filing of an Information. The RTC denied Tolentino's Objection and Motion on October 15, 2001, reiterating that failure to secure the written authority of the Provincial or City Prosecutor affects the court's jurisdiction.

• Authority of the State Prosecutor: Petitioners argued that State Prosecutor Tolentino was duly authorized to file the Information based on Regional Order No. 97-024A, issued by the Regional State Prosecutor, designating him as Special Prosecutor to handle SSS cases in the Bicol Region.
• Administrative Interpretation: Petitioners maintained that the letter dated October 24, 2000, from Chief State Prosecutor Zuño—stating that prosecutors-designate do not need the approval of the Regional, Provincial, or City Prosecutor—constituted an administrative opinion interpreting existing rules that should be respected and upheld.
• Procedural Defenses: Petitioners contended that the motion to quash was filed out of time and that no evidence was submitted to support it.

• Lack of Authority to File: Private respondent argued that State Prosecutor Tolentino had no legal personality or authority to commence prosecution because he was not the City or Provincial Prosecutor.
• Non-compliance with the Rules: Private respondent asserted that the designation by the Regional State Prosecutor did not exempt Tolentino from the mandatory requirement of the third paragraph of Sec. 4, Rule 112 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, which requires prior written authority or approval from the Provincial or City Prosecutor, Chief State Prosecutor, or Ombudsman or his deputy.

• Authority to File Information: Whether a State Prosecutor designated by a Regional State Prosecutor is authorized to file an Information without the prior written approval of the City or Provincial Prosecutor under Sec. 4, Rule 112 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure.
• Timeliness and Sufficiency of Motion to Quash: Whether the motion to quash was filed on time and supported by sufficient evidence.

• Authority to File Information: The Information was correctly quashed. The 2000 Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure expressly limit the authority to approve the filing or dismissal of an Information to the Provincial or City Prosecutor, the Chief State Prosecutor, or the Ombudsman or his deputy. The Regional State Prosecutor is not included in this enumeration. Under the principle of expressio unius est exclusio alterius, the express mention of these specific officers excludes the Regional State Prosecutor. Furthermore, an examination of the functions of the Regional State Prosecutor under Sec. 8 of Presidential Decree No. 1275 reveals that approving Informations filed by investigating prosecutors is not among them. The Chief State Prosecutor's letter-opinion, issued before the 2000 Rules took effect, cannot override the mandatory requirements of the Rules.
• Timeliness and Sufficiency of Motion to Quash: The motion to quash was filed on time and required no evidentiary support. Substantial compliance was observed when private respondent's counsel orally moved to quash before the arraignment, and the written motion was filed within the five-day period granted by the court. No evidence was necessary because the lack of authority was apparent on the face of the Information and a matter of judicial notice.

• Expressio unius est exclusio alterius — The express mention of one person, thing, or consequence implies the exclusion of all others. Applied to hold that because the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure expressly listed the officers authorized to approve the filing of an Information (Provincial or City Prosecutor, Chief State Prosecutor, Ombudsman or deputy), the Regional State Prosecutor was implicitly excluded from exercising such authority.
• Mandatory construction of negative terms — When a provision is couched in negative terms importing that the act shall not be done otherwise than designated, the provision is mandatory. Applied to the third paragraph of Sec. 4, Rule 112 ("[n]o complaint or information may be filed or dismissed... without the prior written authority or approval..."), making compliance strictly required.

• "Since the provision is couched in negative terms importing that the act shall not be done otherwise than designated, it is mandatory."
• "It is a rule of statutory construction that the express mention of one person, thing, or consequence implies the exclusion of all others, expressio unius est exclusio alterius."
• "For the orderly administration of justice, the provisions contained therein should be followed by all litigants, but especially by the prosecution arm of the Government."

• Villa v. Ibañez, 88 Phil. 402 — Cited by the RTC for the proposition that an Information filed by a qualified and authorized officer is required for the court to acquire jurisdiction over the case.
• Brehm v. Republic of the Philippines, 118 Phil. 1005 (1963) — Cited as authority for the rule that provisions couched in negative terms are mandatory.
• Aratuc v. Commission on Elections, 88 SCRA 251 (1979) — Cited for the definition of grave abuse of discretion in certiorari cases, implying an indifferent disregard of the law, arbitrariness, and caprice.

• Section 4, Rule 112 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure — Requires the prior written authority or approval of the Provincial or City Prosecutor, Chief State Prosecutor, or Ombudsman or his deputy before an investigating prosecutor may file or dismiss a complaint or information. Applied to invalidate the Information filed by the State Prosecutor, as the approving officer (Regional State Prosecutor) was not among those authorized.
• Section 3(d), Rule 117 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure — Provides that the officer filing the information having no authority to do so is a ground for a motion to quash. Applied to quash the Information due to the State Prosecutor's lack of required authority.
• Section 8, Presidential Decree No. 1275 — Enumerates the functions of the Regional State Prosecutor. Noted that approving Informations filed by investigating prosecutors is not among these enumerated functions.
• Sections 22(a) and 28(e), Republic Act No. 8282 (Social Security Act of 1997) — The substantive offense charged against the private respondent for failure to remit SSS premiums despite demand.

Sandoval-Gutierrez, Acting Chairperson; Corona; Garcia.