QUISAY vs.

PEOPLE OF THEPHILIPPINES
G.R. No. 216920. January 13, 2016

FACTS OF THE CASE:

The case at bar is a petition to review on certiorari against the decision and the resolution issued by
the Court of Appeals (C.A.) affirming the decision of the RTC Makati in denying petitioner Quisay’s
Motion to Quash.

The Office of the prosecutor of Makati City issued a Resolution finding a probable cause against the
petitioner for violation of Section 10 of R.A. 7610, otherwise known as the Special Protection of
Children Against Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination Act. An information was file before the
RTC afterwards. Petitioner Quisay moved to quash the said information against her on the ground of
lack of authority, alleging that it was written and filed by Assistant Prosecutor Dela Cruz without
prior written authority or approval of the City Prosecutor. The RTC denied the petition for lack of
merit after having found the Pabatid Sakdal to have sufficiently complied with Section 4, Rule 112
of the Rules of Court The petitioner, then, moved for reconsideration but it was also denied.
Aggrieved, she elevated the matter to the Court of Appeals.

The C.A., however, affirmed the ruling of the trial court. It held that pursuant to Section 9 of R.A.
10071, otherwise known as the “Prosecution Service Act of 2010,” as well as OCP-Makati Office
Order No. 32, the City Prosecutor of Makati authorized Senior Assistant City Prosecutor Hirang.
Hence, the latter may approve the Pasiya on behalf of the city Prosecutor, It further held that the
certification made by ACP De la Cruz in the information clearly indicated that the same was filed
after the requisite preliminary investigation and with the prior written authority or approval of the
city Prosecutor. Thus, it enjoys the presumption of regularity accorded to a public officer’s
performance of official functions, in absence of convincing evidence to the contrary.