TOPIC Rule 117, Motion to Quash (MTQ)

CASE NO. G.R. No. 150606 June 7, 2007

CASE NAME Tolentino v. Paqueo, Jr.,
MEMBER Marie Kayla Galit

DOCTRINE
1. Paragraph (c), of Sec. 3 of Rule 117.
• "(c) that the officer who filed the information had no authority to do so."
2. The designation of State Prosecutor Tolentino to investigate, file this information and to
prosecute SSS cases in court does not exempt him from complying with the provision of the 3rd
par of [Sec. 4 of] Rule 112 of [CRIMPRO]:
• 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. Regional State Prosecutor under Sec. 8 of PD 1275 showed that they do not include that of
approving the Information filed or dismissed by the investigating prosecutor.
• Since the Regional State Prosecutor is not included among the law officers authorized to
approve the filing or dismissal of the Information of the investigating prosecutor, the
Information filed by Tolentino did not comply with the requirement of Sec. 4, Rule 112.
4. There is substantial compliance by Tecklo with the rule, as it was satisfactorily explained in his
Memorandum that his counsel orally moved to quash the Information before the arraignment
5. There was no need to submit any evidence to support the ground for quashing the Information,
since it was apparent and within judicial notice that Toletino was not City/Provincial prosecutor.

RECIT-READY DIGEST
State Prosecutor Tolentino filed an information against Tecklo for violation of The Social Security Act of
1997. The attached certification only has the approval of the Regional State Prosecutor (Basically, the
reason why the information was quashed.) There was no prior approval of City Prosecutor. Tecklo moved
for the quashal of information for violation of par. (c), of Sec. 3 of Rule 117 vis-à-vis the 3rd par of [Sec.
4 of] Rule 112 (See Doctrine for provision), Judge Paqueo granted the same.

Issue is: W/N Tolentino is duly authorized to file the subject Information without the approval of the City
Prosecutor? – The Court held NO.

Though the letter dated October 24, 2000 of Chief S/P Zuño, upon which Tolentino relies to support his
authority to file the Information without the approval of the City Prosecutor, was issued before the
changes in the third paragraph of Sec. 4, Rule 112 were introduced, under Sec. 8 of PD 1275 showed that
the Regional State Prosecutor’s powers do not include that of approving the Information filed or
dismissed by the investigating prosecutor. Since the Regional State Prosecutor is not included among the
law officers authorized to approve the filing or dismissal of the Information of the investigating
prosecutor, the Information filed by Tolentino did not comply with the requirement of Sec. 4, Rule 112.

FACTS
• State Prosecutor Romulo SJ. Tolentino filed an Information charging Benedict Dy Tecklo, the
owner/proprietor of Qualistronic Builders, of violation of The Social Security Act of 1997 for
failing to remit the premiums due for his employee to the Social Security System despite demand.
• The Information contains a certification by State Prosecutor Tolentino. The last sentence of said
certification states:

1
 o “...and that the filing of the information is with the prior authority and approval of the
regional state prosecutor”(Note: There was no prior approval of City Prosecutor)
• The case was raffled to the RTC of Naga City presided by Judge Pablo M. Paqueo, Jr.
• It was set for arraignment on August 7, 2001. Counsel of Tecklo moved for the deferment of the
arraignment and requested time to file a motion to quash the Information
• On August 10, 2001, Tecklo filed a Motion to Quash stating that:
o “...upon the sole ground that State Prosecutor Tolentino, not being the City Prosecutor
nor the Provincial Prosecutor, has no legal personality xxx to commence prosecution by
the filing of the Information and thus prosecute the case.”
• State Prosecutor Tolentino opposed:
o He was designated as Special Prosecutor for SSS cases by Regional State Prosecutor
Turingan
o Chief State Prosecutor Zuño confirmed and that Information to be filed in court by
prosecutors-designate do not need the approval of the Regional State Prosecutor or
Provincial/City Prosecutor;
o Regional State Prosecutor, as alter ego of the Secretary of Justice, is vested with authority
to designate Special Prosecutors
o City Prosecutor has been inhibited by the Tecklo from investigating as it is the Panel of
Prosecutors that is now acting as City Prosecutor over all city cases involving SSS cases.
• RTC: Issued an Order quashing the Information and dismissing the case:
o The motion is based on the lack of legal personality of State Prosecutor Tolentino
o One of the grounds provided by the rules to quash an Information is paragraph (c), of
Sec. 3 of Rule 117.
§ "(c) that the officer who filed the information had no authority to do so."
o The designation of State Prosecutor Tolentino to investigate, file this information and to
prosecute SSS cases in court does not exempt him from complying with the provision of
the 3rd par of [Sec. 4 of] Rule 112 of [CRIMPRO]:
§ 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
• Tolentino filed an Objection and Motion praying that the Order be set aside and that the case
People v. Tecklo be scheduled for arraignment without unnecessary delay.
o In an Order, Judge Paqueo denied Tolentino's Objection and Motion.

ISSUE/S and HELD

1. W/N Tolentino is duly authorized to file the subject Information without the approval of the
City Prosecutor? –NO

RATIO (Note: There are a lot of laws involved in this case L Please bear with me.)
• Judge Paqueo quashed the Information based on Sec. 3(d), Rule 117 in relation to the 3RD par. of
Sec. 4, Rule 112 of the [Criminal Procedure] (See Facts for provision)
• Changes in the 3rd par of Sec. 4, Rule 112 were introduced in CRIMPRO, which took effect on
December 1, 2000.
o Noted that the letter dated October 24, 2000 of Chief S/P Zuño, upon which Tolentino
relies to support his authority to file the Information without the approval of the City
Prosecutor, was issued before the changes in the third paragraph of Sec. 4, Rule 112 were
introduced.

1985 Rules of Criminal Procedure 2000 Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure

"[no] complaint or information may be filed or "[n]o complaint or information may be led or

2
dismissed by an investigating fiscal without the dismissed by an investigating prosecutor without
prior written authority or approval of the provincial the prior written authority or approval of the
or city fiscal of chief state prosecutor" provincial or city prosecutor or chief state
prosecutor or the Ombudsman or his deputy."
Note: Both provisions couched in negative term - MANDATORY

• Regional State Prosecutor under Sec. 8 of PD 1275 showed that they do not include that of
approving the Information filed or dismissed by the investigating prosecutor.
o Since the Regional State Prosecutor is not included among the law officers authorized to
approve the filing or dismissal of the Information of the investigating prosecutor, the
Information filed by Tolentino did not comply with the requirement of Sec. 4, Rule 112.

Tolentino’s another contention: (Lawyers are insanely insatiable lol)

• Accused must move to quash at any time before entering his plea (Sec. 1 of Rule 117) and the
trial court is barred from granting further time to the accused to do so; and
• There was no evidence to prove the same

Court held:
• There is substantial compliance by Tecklo with the rule, as it was satisfactorily explained in his
Memorandum that his counsel orally moved to quash the Information before the arraignment
• There was no need to submit any evidence to support the ground for quashing the Information,
since it was apparent and within judicial notice that Toletino was not City/Provincial prosecutor.

DISPOSTIVE PORTION
WHEREFORE, the petition for certiorari and mandamus is DISMISSED for lack of merit.