Republic of the Philippines

Resolution

Crim. Case No. 14-721

Page 2 of 8x-------------------------------x

Republic of the Philippines

National Capital Judicial Region

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT

City of Makati

BRANCH 60

THE PEOPLE OF THE

PHILIPPINES,

Plaintiff,

CRIM. CASE NO. 14-721

-versus-

BIANCA EMILIA B.

HERMOSO,

Accused.

Page 1 of 3 pagesx--------------------x

R E S O L U T I O N

Submitted for the RESOLUTION of the Court is the MOTION TO QUASH from the Accused BIANCA EMILIA B. HERMOSO which was received by this court on October 16, 2014.

The resolution of the instant motion filed by herein accused Bianca Emilia B. Hermoso (Ms. Hermoso) is hinged upon the failure of the Prosecution to comply with Section 4, Rule 112 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, which reads:Section 4. Resolution of investigating prosecutor and its review.

X x x.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. X x x.

It is the contention of Ms. Hermoso, inter alia, that, thus;

9. The Information in this case readily shows that the same was signed only by Assistant City Prosecutor Estefano H. Dela Cruz, who claims to be the Investigating Prosecutor in said case, and the same was subscribed before Assistant City Prosecutor Nora C. Sibucao. Said Information does not bear, however, the written authority or approval of the City Prosecutor of Makati City. While said Information contains a certification by Assistant City Prosecutor Estefano H. Dela Cruz that this Information is being re-filed in compliance with the directive of the City Prosecutor embodied in Administrative Order No. 14-045 dated February 20, 2014 and Memorandum dated February 20, 2014., no written authority or approval of the City Prosecutor of Makati City has been shown or attached thereto indicating that the City Prosecutor has, in fact, given his prior authority or approval in writing to file the Information, as mandated by Section 4, Rule 112 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure. Hence, the Information was file by Investigating Prosecutor Estafano H. Dela Cruz without the prior proper written authority or approval of the City Prosecutor of Makati City. For failure to comply with this mandatory requirement, the Information suffers a fatal infirmity which prevents this Honorable Court from acquiring jurisdiction over the case.

10. Pursuant to Section 3, Rule 117 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, the failure to comply with the requirement under Section 4, Rule 112 of said Rules, is a ground to quash the Information as the officer who filed the Information had no authority to do so. The failure to comply with said requirement goes to the very foundations of jurisdiction of this Honorable Court over the case. (pages 5 to 6, Motion TO Quash)Per contra, the prosecution maintains, through its Opposition the following, to wit:

5. A reading of accuseds Motion To Quash readily reveals that the ONLY ground relied upon for the quashal of the Information filed against her is Section 3 (d), Rule 117 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, which provides [t]hat the officer who filed the Information had no authority to do so. Unfortunately for her, however, her reliance on the said provision is utterly misplaced.

6. X x x.

6.1 A plain reading of Section 4, Rule 112 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure shows that nothing therein requires that the Information must contain ON ITS FACE the signature of the provincial or city prosecutor or chief state prosecutor or the Ombudsman or his deputy, as the case may be, in order to vest jurisdiction upon the Honorable Court. Significantly, the rules do not even categorically state that the absence of the said signature on the face of the Information renders it fatally defective or invalid.

6.2 All that Section 4, Rule 112 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure requires is that the information be filed with prior written authority or approval of, in this case, the Honorable City Prosecutor. It does NOT require, at all, that this written authority or approval be attached or appear on the information.

7. In this case, the Honorable Investigating Prosecutor, Estefano H. De La Cruz (Hon. De La Cruz), certified, in the Information dated 14 May 2014, that the same was filed under the directive of the City Prosecutor:

THIS IS TO CERTIFY that, as shown by the record a preliminary investigation was conducted in this case in accordance with law; that complainant and its witnesses were personally examined by an authorized officer; that on the basis of the sworn statements and other evidence submitted there is reasonable ground to believe that the crime has been committed and that the accused is probably guilty thereof; that the accused was given the chance to be informed of the complaint and of the evidence submitted against her; and that the accused was given an opportunity to submit controverting evidence. Further, this Information is being re-filed in compliance with the directive of the City Prosecutor embodied in Administrative Order No. 14-045 dated February 20, 2014 and Memorandum dated February 20, 2014. (Emphasis in the original)

(signed)

ESTEFANO H. DELA CRUZ

Investigating Prosecutor

8. That the Honorable City Prosecutor already gave his prior written approval in favor of the filing (or rather, the re-filing) of the Information actually filed in the instant case can clearly be seen from the said Certification of Hon. De La Cruz. The presumption is that the prosecuting officers regularly performed their duties, and this presumption can be overcome only by proof to the contrary, not by mere speculation. Here, accused has not demonstrated any reason why the said Certification, i.e., that the Honorable City Prosecutor had indeed issued Administrative Order No. 14-045 dated 20 February 2014 and Memorandum dated 20 February 2014, cannot be taken as the absolutely [sic] truth.

8.1 Moreover, the Memorandum dated 20 February 2014 (Memorandum), mentioned in Hon. De La Cruzs Certification in the Information, leaves no doubt that the re-filing of the Information herein was CLEARLY WITH THE APPROVAL AND UNDER THE DIRECTIVE OF THE HONORABLE CITY PROSECUTOR:

In view of the dismissal by the Regional Trial Court, Branch 57, of the cases listed in Annex A hereof, on ground of lack of authority or approval of the City Prosecutor, and pursuant to Administrative Order No. 14-045 dated February 20, 2014, you are hereby directed to re-file the Informations of all the enumerated cases immediately, using certification in Annex B.

This memorandum supersedes previous orders and memorandums inconsistent herewith.

For strict compliance.

(Sgd)

JORGE G. CATALAN, JR.

City Prosecutor

8.2 As can be gleaned from above, it is crystal clear that no less than the Honorable City Prosecutor, Jorge Catalan, Jr., authorized, and in fact, directed Hon. De La Cruz to re-file the Information against the accused herein, among others, and also, to include the above Certification.

8.3 Thus, considering the above Certification in the Information, in addition to the Honorable City Prosecutors clear directive in the Memorandum dated 20 February 2014, it is without doubt that the Information in the instant criminal case was filed with the approval of the Honorable City Prosecutor, in faithful compliance with the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure.

9. As mentioned earlier, the Revised Rules o[f] Criminal Procedure does not even specifically prescribe that the signature of the Honorable City Prosecutor should appear on the Information for it to be valid. What it merely requires is the Honorable City Prosecutors PRIOR approval or authority. To reiterate, there is nothing in the Revised Rules o[f] Criminal Procedure that mandates the Honorable City Prosecutor to personally affix his/her signature to the actual Informations filed in court. (pages 4 to 7, OPPOSITION [Re: Motion to Quash dated 15 October 2014])

This Court concurs with the stance taken by the prosecution herein. An Information filed by a qualified and authorized officer is required for the jurisdiction of the court over the case (Villa v. Ibanez, et al., 88 Phil 402). Contrary to the defendants allegations, the City Prosecutor did give his written approval for the re-filing of the Information against the defendant through its 20 February 2014 Administrative Order 14-045 and similarly dated Memorandum, which is a patent compliance with the prior written authority or approval of the city prosecutor requirement in Section 4, Rule 112 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure. Upon the previous dismissal without prejudice by the Regional Trial Court Branch 57 of the City of Makati because of prosecutions failure to satisfy the prior written authority or approval of the city prosecutor requirement, the Investigating Officer this time, made sure that she complies with said prerequisite by securing a written approval and authorization by the City Prosecutor. In the instant case, although the Resolution and the Information did not bear the approving signature of the City Prosecutor, the filing of the same was authorized. A perusal of the Information filed in this case reveals that it bears a certification which reads, thus:

THIS IS TO CERTIFY that, as shown by the record a preliminary investigation was conducted in this case in accordance with law; that complainant and its witnesses were personally examined by an authorized officer; that on the basis of the sworn statements and other evidence submitted there is reasonable ground to believe that the crime has been committed and that the accused is probably guilty thereof; that the accused was given the chance to be informed of the complaint and of the evidence submitted against her; and that the accused was given an opportunity to submit controverting evidence. Further, this Information is being re-filed in compliance with the directive of the City Prosecutor embodied in Administrative Order No. 14-045 dated February 20, 2014 and Memorandum dated February 20, 2014. (page 2 of the 14 May 2014 Information, Emphasis supplied)

WHEREFORE, the instant Motion To Quash of herein accused Bianca Emilia B. Hermoso is hereby DENIED for utter lack of merit.

Accordingly, the accused and his counsel are ordered to attend the Arraignment and Pre-Trial Conference of this case on March 10, 2015 at 8:30 in the morning

Serve copies of this Resolution to all concerned.

SO ORDERED.

Given in chambers on March 4, 2015.HON. CESAR L. AGANON

Presiding JudgeCLA/ajcCopy furnished:

PROS. JONATHAN M. ALDOVINO

16th Floor New City Hall Bldg.

Makati City

Atty. Patricia C. Velarde

Fornier & Fornier Law Firm

Ground Floor, Unit 8, The Gallery

Amorsolo St., Legazpi Village

Makati City

Agnes Ballesteros

c/o Paredes Garcia & Golez

Unit 1701 East Tower

Phil. Stock Exchange Center

Exchange Road, Ortigas

Pasig City

Bianca Emilia B. Hermoso

Glenhaven 2, 15/F California Gardens

Square Condo, Ubertad St.,

Mandaluyong City