Tolentino vs Poqueo

FACTS:

Petitioner, State Prosecutor Romulo SJ. Tolentino filed an information charging private respondent,
Benedict Tecklo for violation of Sec 22 (a) in relation to Sec 28 (e) of R.A. No. 8282, for failing to remit
SSS premiums due to his employee despite demand.

Accused, private respondent through his counsel filed a motion to quash the information of the ground
that Petitioner, Prosecutor Tolentino has no legal personality and authority to commence such
prosecution without the approval of the City Prosecutor of Naga City, the situs of the crime.

Petitioner contends that he was given authority and designated as Special Prosecutor for SSS cases by
the Regional State Prosecutor to comply with the request for SSS which authority was confirmed by the
Chief Sate prosecutor. He claims, approval of the City Prosecutor in filing the information is no longer
necessary by virtue of the Regional order which designated him as Special Prosecutor.

Respondent, Judge Paqueo granted the motion to quash based on the lack of legal personality of State
Prosecutor Tolentino, not legally clothed with the authority to commence prosecution in violation of Sec
4 (3) of Rule 112 which requires the approval of the City Prosecutor prior to filing an information and Sec
3 (c) of Rule 117 which provides the grounds for granting a motion to quash. He then denied the
objection and motion of the petitioner.

A petition for certiorari and mandamus was then filed by the petitioner alleging that respondent Judge
Paqueo acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in issuing orders
granting the motion to quash of private respondent in the case People vs Tecklo.

ISSUE:

Whether or not petitioner State Prosecutor Tolentino is duly authorized to file the subject Information
without the approval of the City Prosecutor?

HELD:

No. The Court ruled that the decision of the respondent Judge to grant the motion to quash is proper.

Petitioner alleged that he was designated as a Special Prosecutor by the Regional State Prosecutor in
relation with the regional order, however Regional State Prosecutor is not included among the law
officers authorized to approve the filing or dismissal of the Information in compliance with Sec 4, Rule
112. In the case at bar, Petitioner did not comply with such requirement. Consequently, the non-
compliance was a ground to quash the information under Sec 3 (2) of Rule 117.

Respondent judge quashed the Information based on Sec. 3 (d), Rule 117 of the Revised Rules of
Criminal Procedure in relation to the third paragraph of Sec. 4, Rule 112 of the Revised Rules of Criminal
Procedure, thus:

Rule 112. Sec 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.
Rule 117. Sec. 3. Grounds.— The accused may move to quash the complaint or information on any of
the following grounds: x x x (d) That the officer who filed the information had no authority to do so.
Therefore, the Court finds that Respondent, Judge did not gravely abuse his discretion in dismissing the
information for failure to the petitioner, State prosecutor to comply with Sec 4 (3) of Rule 112, as such
failure tantamount to an invalid information filed for the officer who filed it had no authority to do so.

In this petition for certiorari, the Court finds that respondent judge did not gravely abuse his discretion
in dismissing the Information filed by petitioner State Prosecutor Romulo SJ. Tolentino for failure to
comply with the third paragraph of Sec. 4, Rule 112 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure.

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

PEOPLE v. LTSG. DOMINADOR BAYABOS, GR No. 171222, 2015-02-18

Facts:
Balidoy was admitted as a probationary midshipman at the PMMA.
In order to reach active status, all new entrants were required to successfully complete the mandatory
"Indoctrination and Orientation Period,"... which was set from 2 May to 1 June 2001.
Balidoy died on 3 May 2001.
A criminal case against Alvarez et al. was then filed with the Regional Trial Court of Iba, Zambales (RTC
Zambales).
The Assistant Provincial Prosecutor also endorsed to the Deputy Ombudsman for the Military the finding
of probable cause to charge the... school authorities as accomplices to hazing
The Ombudsman Investigator agreed with the findings of the Assistant Provincial Prosecutor.
The Office of the Special Prosecutor eventually filed with the Sandiganbayan a criminal case charging
respondents as accomplices to the crime of hazing.
Meanwhile, the RTC Zambales issued an Order dismissing the Information against the principal accused,
Alvarez et al.
Bayabos, Ferrer, Magsino, Doctor, and Operio (collectively, Bayabos et al.) filed a Motion to Quash the
Information. They argued that the Information did not contain all the essential elements of the offense.
Bayabos et al. argued that the case against the principal accused had already been dismissed with
finality by the RTC. There being no more principals with whom they could have cooperated in the
execution of the offense, they asserted that the case... against them must be dismissed.
The Special Prosecutor opposed[14] the motion of Bayabos et al.
Six days before Bayabos et al. were set to be arraigned,... the Sandiganbayan issued the assailed
Resolution (SB Resolution I) quashing the Information and dismissing the criminal case against them.
It stressed that before there can be an accomplice,... there must be a principal by direct participation,
the latter being the originator of the criminal design. In this case, as there were no principal perpetrators
to speak of, necessarily, there was no one else with whom they could have cooperated in the execution
of the crime of... hazing.
Issues:
Whether the prosecution of respondents for the crime of accomplice to hazing can proceed in spite of
the dismissal with finality of the case against the principal accused
Whether the Information filed against respondents contains all the material averments for the
prosecution of the crime of accomplice to hazing under the Anti-Hazing Law
Ruling:
we agree with petitioner that the Sandiganbayan erred when it dismissed outright the case against
respondents, on the sole ground that the case against the purported principals had already been
dismissed.
the Sandiganbayan committed an error when it simply relied on the Order of Entry of Judgment without
so much as scrutinizing the reason for the dismissal of... the case against the purported principals.
At any time before entering a plea, an accused may assail the information filed with the court based on
the grounds enumerated in Section 3, Rule 117 of the Rules of Court, one of which is the claim that the
facts charged do not constitute an offense. In assessing whether an... information must be quashed on
that ground, the basic test is to determine if the facts averred would establish the presence of the
essential elements of the crime as defined in the law.
First, we reject the contention of respondents that PMMA should not be considered an organization.
Clearly, it is included in the term organization within the meaning of the law.
We also disagree with the Sandiganbayan ruling that the quashal of the Information was warranted for
failure to allege that the purported acts were not covered by the exemption relating to the duly
recommended and approved "testing and training procedure and practices" for... prospective regular
members of the AFP and the PNP. This exemption is an affirmative defense in, not an essential element
of, the crime of accomplice to hazing.
Reason for the grant of motion to quash
Nevertheless, we find albeit for a different reason that the Motion to Quash must be granted, as the
Information does not include all the material facts constituting the crime of accomplice to hazing.
As can be gleaned from the above, the indictment merely states that psychological pain and physical
injuries were inflicted on the victim. There is no allegation that the purported acts were employed as a
prerequisite for admission or entry into the organization. Failure to aver... this crucial ingredient would
prevent the successful prosecution of the criminal responsibility of the accused, either as principal or as
accomplice, for the crime of hazing.
Section 6, Rule 110 of the Rules of Court, expressly states that the information must include, inter alia,
both "the designation of the offense given by the statute" and "the acts or omissions complained of as
constituting the offense." The Special Prosecutor’s belated argument in his Petition before this Court
that the successful completion of the indoctrination and orientation program was used as a prerequisite
for continued admission to the academy – i.e., attainment of active midshipman status – does not cure
this defect in the Information.
Thus, the Information must be quashed, as the ultimate facts it presents do not constitute the crime of
accomplice to hazing. Finally, we reject the Special Prosecutor’s claim that the Sandiganbayan should
just have ordered the filing of another information or the correction of the defect by amendment,
instead of dismissing the case outright. Indeed, Section 4, Rule 117 of the Rules of Court, provides that if
a motion to quash is based on the ground that the facts charged do not constitute an offense, the court
shall give the prosecution a chance to correct the defect by amendment. However, the provision also
states that if the prosecution fails to make the amendment, the motion shall be granted. Here, we point
out that the Special Prosecutor insisted in his Comment on the Motion to Quash that there was no
defect in the Information. Neither has he filed a new information after the motion was sustained,
pursuant to Section 5, Rule 117. Thus, the Sandiganbayan was correct in ordering the quashal of the
Information and the eventual dismissal of the case. This does not mean, however, that the Special
Prosecutor is now precluded from filing another information.1âwphi1 Section 6, Rule 117, specifically
states that an order sustaining a motion to quash would not bar another prosecution. That is, of course,
unless respondents are able to prove that the criminal action or liability has been extinguished, or that
double jeopardy has already attached.