Digest: People v. Garfin

People v. Garfin
G.R. No. 153176, March 29, 2004
PUNO, J:

Facts:

The information which was filed by State Prosecutor Romulo SJ. Tolentino against Serafin Saballegue for violation of Section 22(a) in relation to Sections 19(b) and 28(e) of Republic Act No. 8282, otherwise known as the “Social Security Acts”, will readily show that it has it has not been approved by the City Prosecutor. Accused 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. However, as a special prosecutor designated by the regional state prosecutor to handle SSS cases within Region V, State Prosecutor Tolentino contends that he is authorized to file the information involving violations of the SSS law without need of prior approval from the city prosecutor.

Issue(s):

1)   Whether or not the officer who filed the information, State Prosecutor Tolentino, had authority to do so. 

2)   Whether or not the prior written authority and approval of the city or provincial prosecutor or chief state prosecutor is necessary in filing the information. 

3)   Whether or not 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

 

Ruling:

1)   No. Absence of a directive from the Secretary of Justice designating State Prosecutor Tolentino as Special Prosecutor for SSS cases or a prior written approval of the information by the provincial or city prosecutor, the information in Criminal Case No. RTC 2001-0597 was filed by an officer without authority to file the same. As this infirmity in the information constitutes a jurisdictional defect that cannot be cured, the respondent judge did not err in dismissing the case for lack of jurisdiction. Thus, the criminal case is dismissed without prejudice to the filing of a new information by an authorized officer.

2)   Yes. Prior authority and approval of the city, provincial, or chief state prosecutor should have been obtained. Lack of prior authority or approval by the city or provincial prosecutor or chief state prosecutor is an infirmity in the information that prevented the court from acquiring jurisdiction over the case. Since lack of jurisdiction is a defect that may be raised as an objection anytime even after arraignment, the respondent judge did not err in granting the motion to dismiss based on this ground. Rule 112, Section 4, paragraph 3 provides 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.

3)   No. 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 in the information cannot be cured by silence, acquiescence, or even by express consentThe 2000 Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure did not intend to abandon the Villa ruling which states that if the filing officer lacks authority to file the information, jurisdiction is not conferred on the court and this infirmity cannot be cured by silence or waiver, acquiescence, or even by express consent.