March 29, 2004
Ponente: Puno, J.
FACTS
In June 2001, Serafin Saballegue was charged with violation of Republic Act No. 8282, otherwise known as the Social Security Act. The Information, signed by State Prosecutor Romulo SJ. Tolentino, contained the allegation that Sabellegue, while being the proprietor of Saballegue Printing Press in Naga City, failed and refused to remit the premiums due for his employee to the SSS.
In September 2001, Saballegue pleaded not guilty to the charge. Three days later, he filed a motion to dismiss on the ground that the Information was filed without the prior written authority or approval of the city prosecutor as required under Section 4, Rule 112 of the Revised Rules of Court.
RTC• Action: Motion to Dismiss (filed by Saballegue)
People: By his plea, Saballegue waived all objections to the Information. Prosecutor Tolentino also contends that having been duly designated to assist the City Prosecutor in the investigation and prosecution of all SSS cases by the Regional State prosecutor as alter ego of the Secretary of Justice in Region V, then that authority may be given to him without the approval of the City Prosecutor.• Saballegue: The Information failed to comply with Section 4, par. 3 of Rule 112 as it has not been approved by the City Prosecutor. In effect, the court did not obtain jurisdiction over the case and must therefore be immediately dismissed.
RTC Ruling: Motion to Dismiss granted. Judge Garfin held that: (1) The information has not been filed in accordance with Section 4, par. 3 of Rule 112 of the 2000 Rules on Criminal Procedure: "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." (2) Saballegue's plea to the Information is not a waiver to file a motion to dismiss or to quash on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. By express provision of the rules and by a long line of decisions, questions of lack of jurisdiction may be raised at any stage of the proceedings.
People: Additional argument: As a special prosecutor designated by the regional state prosecutor to handle SSS cases within Region V, State Prosecutor Tolentino is authorized to file the information involving violations of the SSS law without need of prior approval from the city prosecutor. Letters of commendation from Chief State Prosecutor Jovencito Zuo and Secretary Hernando Perez were offered as proof to show that State Prosecutor Tolentino's authority to file the information was recognized.
Saballegue: The motion for reconsideration lacked a notice of hearing, hence it is pro forma or a mere scrap of paper.
RTC Ruling: Motion denied. Failure to comply with the requirement of notice prescribed in Sections 4 and 5, Rule 15 of the Rules of Court means the MR is a mere scrap of paper.
RULING
Petition denied. Criminal case against Saballegue is dismissed.
Whether the prior written authority and approval of the city or provincial prosecutor or chief state prosecutor is necessary in filing the information at bar. – YES.
State Prosecutor Tolentino contends that, pursuant to Regional State Prosecutor Santiago M. Turingan's orders, he was assigned as special prosecutor for SSS cases in Region V. As such, he argues that the city prosecutor no longer needs to participate in the filing and prosecution of the Information in the case at bar.
However, the Court held that Regional State Prosecutor Turingan's orders are questionable, especially since under P.D. 1275, a regional state prosecutor only has immediate administrative supervision over all provincial and city fiscals and other prosecuting officers of provinces and cities comprised within his region. This means he can only oversee the operations of such agencies and not control their functions. Turingan's orders for city prosecutors to inhibit from handling SSS cases are therefore not valid.
Neither is Turingan a special prosecutor/counsel. In fact, while a letter from DOJ Secretary Perez commends the efforts of Turingan in successfully prosecuting SSS cases, the same letter states that all important cases of the SSS should be referred to the Office of the Government Corporate Counsel.
In the absence of a directive from the Secretary of Justice designating State Prosecutor Tolentino as Special Prosecutor for SSS cases, he cannot discharge of the duties normally rendered by provincial or city prosecutors.• The foregoing items inevitably lead to the conclusion that in the case at bar, the prior authority and approval of the city, provincial or chief state prosecutor should have been obtained first.
Whether the lack of prior written approval of the city, provincial or chief state prosecutor in the filing of an Information is a defect in the Information that is waived if not raised as an objection before arraignment. – NO.
An infirmity in the information cannot be cured by silence, acquiescence, or even by express consent. Granted, Saballegue's plea is neither a waiver nor consent. Saballegue is therefore entitled to question the court's lack of jurisdiction at any stage of the proceeding.
The lack of prior authority or approval by the city or provincial prosecutor or chief state prosecutor is an incurable infirmity in the Information that prevented the court from acquiring jurisdiction over the case.
Villa v. Ibaez, et al. (1951) remains the leading case law in situations where the Information is filed by an unauthorized officer, as in the case at bar. In Villa, the Court held that a court's lack of jurisdiction over the offense charged (due to, among others, the lack of written approval of the city prosecutor in the filing of the Information) is one of the exceptions to the waiver of all objections which are grounds for a motion to quash.
This means that even if the accused had already made his plea, he can still file a motion to quash. The 1940 Rules of Court, the 1964 Rules of Court, the 1985 Rules of Criminal Procedure, and the 2000 Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure have all adopted the Court's ruling in Villa.
DOCTRINE
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.
