Tolentino

vs Poque (Digest) G.R. NO. 150606 JUNE 7, 2007

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 Paque 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 approva 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 Jugde 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
ar bar, Petitioner, did not comply with such requirement. Conseuqently, the non-
compliance was a ground to quash the information under Sec 3 (2) of Rule 117.

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 tantamounts to an
invalid information filed for the officer who filed it had no authority to do so.