Motion To Quash Hermoso

Republic of the Philippines
National Capital Judicial Region

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
City of Makati
BRANCH 60
THE PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES,
Plaintiff,
CRIM. CASE NO. 14-721
-versusBIANCA EMILIA B.
HERMOSO,
Accused.
x--------------------x
Page 1 of 3 pages
RESOLUTION
Submitted for the RESOLUTION of the Court is the MOTION
TO QUASH from the Accused BIANCA EMILIA B. HERMOSO
which was received by this court on October 16, 2014.
The resolution of the instant motion filed by herein accused
Bianca Emilia B. Hermoso (Ms. Hermoso) is hinged upon the
failure of the Prosecution to comply with Section 4, Rule 112 of
the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, which reads:
Section 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
Resolution
Crim. Case No. 14-721
Page 2 of 8
x-------------------------------x
chief state prosecutor or the Ombudsman or his deputy. X
x x.
It is the contention of Ms. Hermoso, inter alia, that, thus;

9. The Information in this case readily shows that the
same was signed only by Assistant City Prosecutor Estefano H.
Dela Cruz, who claims to be the Investigating Prosecutor in said
case, and the same was subscribed before Assistant City
Prosecutor Nora C. Sibucao. Said Information does not bear,
however, the written authority or approval of the City Prosecutor
of Makati City. While said Information contains a certification by
Assistant City Prosecutor Estefano H. Dela Cruz that this
Information is being re-filed in compliance with the directive of
the City Prosecutor embodied in Administrative Order No. 14045 dated February 20, 2014 and Memorandum dated February
20, 2014., no written authority or approval of the City
Prosecutor of Makati City has been shown or attached thereto
indicating that the City Prosecutor has, in fact, given his prior
authority or approval in writing to file the Information, as
mandated by Section 4, Rule 112 of the Revised Rules on
Criminal Procedure. Hence, the Information was file by
Investigating Prosecutor Estafano H. Dela Cruz without the prior
proper written authority or approval of the City Prosecutor of
Makati City. For failure to comply with this mandatory
requirement, the Information suffers a fatal infirmity which
prevents this Honorable Court from acquiring jurisdiction over
the case.
10. Pursuant to Section 3, Rule 117 of the Revised Rules
of Criminal Procedure, the failure to comply with the
requirement under Section 4, Rule 112 of said Rules, is a ground
to quash the Information as the officer who filed the Information
had no authority to do so. The failure to comply with said
requirement goes to the very foundations of jurisdiction of this
Honorable Court over the case. (pages 5 to 6, Motion TO
Quash)
Resolution
Page 3 of 8
x-------------------------------x
Per contra, the prosecution maintains, through its Opposition
the following, to wit:
5. A reading of accuseds Motion To Quash readily reveals
that the ONLY ground relied upon for the quashal of the
Information filed against her is Section 3 (d), Rule 117 of the
Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, which provides [t]hat the
officer who filed the Information had no authority to do so.
Unfortunately for her, however, her reliance on the said
provision is utterly misplaced.
6. X x x.
6.1 A plain reading of Section 4, Rule 112 of the
Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure shows that nothing
therein requires that the Information must contain ON ITS
FACE the signature of the provincial or city prosecutor or
chief state prosecutor or the Ombudsman or his deputy, as
the case may be, in order to vest jurisdiction upon the
Honorable Court. Significantly, the rules do not even
categorically state that the absence of the said signature
on the face of the Information renders it fatally defective or
invalid.
6.2 All that Section 4, Rule 112 of the Revised Rules
on Criminal Procedure requires is that the information be
filed with prior written authority or approval of, in this case,
the Honorable City Prosecutor. It does NOT require, at all,
that this written authority or approval be attached or
appear on the information.
7. In this case, the Honorable Investigating Prosecutor,
Estefano H. De La Cruz (Hon. De La Cruz), certified, in the
Information dated 14 May 2014, that the same was filed
under the directive of the City Prosecutor:
THIS IS TO CERTIFY that, as shown by the record
a preliminary investigation was conducted in this
case in accordance with law; that complainant and
its witnesses were personally examined by an
authorized officer; that on the basis of the sworn
Resolution
Page 4 of 8
x-------------------------------x
statements and other evidence submitted there is
reasonable ground to believe that the crime has
been committed and that the accused is probably
guilty thereof; that the accused was given the
chance to be informed of the complaint and of the
evidence submitted against her; and that the
accused was given an opportunity to submit
controverting evidence. Further, this Information is
being re-filed in compliance with the directive of
the City Prosecutor embodied in Administrative
Order No. 14-045 dated February 20, 2014 and
Memorandum dated February 20, 2014. (Emphasis
in the original)
(signed)
ESTEFANO H. DELA CRUZ
Investigating Prosecutor
8. That the Honorable City Prosecutor already gave his
prior written approval in favor of the filing (or rather, the
re-filing) of the Information actually filed in the instant
case can clearly be seen from the said Certification of Hon.
De La Cruz. The presumption is that the prosecuting
officers regularly performed their duties, and this
presumption can be overcome only by proof to the
contrary, not by mere speculation. Here, accused has not
demonstrated any reason why the said Certification, i.e.,
that the Honorable City Prosecutor had indeed issued
Administrative Order No. 14-045 dated 20 February 2014
and Memorandum dated 20 February 2014, cannot be
taken as the absolutely [sic] truth.
8.1 Moreover, the Memorandum dated 20 February
2014 (Memorandum), mentioned in Hon. De La Cruzs
Certification in the Information, leaves no doubt that the
re-filing of the Information herein was CLEARLY WITH THE
APPROVAL AND UNDER THE DIRECTIVE OF THE
HONORABLE CITY PROSECUTOR:
In view of the dismissal by the Regional Trial
Court, Branch 57, of the cases listed in Annex
Resolution
Page 5 of 8
x-------------------------------x
A hereof, on ground of lack of authority or
approval of the City Prosecutor, and pursuant
to Administrative Order No. 14-045 dated
February 20, 2014, you are hereby directed
to re-file the Informations of all the
enumerated
cases
immediately,
using
certification in Annex B.
This memorandum supersedes previous
orders
and
memorandums
inconsistent
herewith.
For strict compliance.
(Sgd)
JORGE G. CATALAN, JR.
City Prosecutor
8.2 As can be gleaned from above, it is crystal clear
that no less than the Honorable City Prosecutor, Jorge
Catalan, Jr., authorized, and in fact, directed Hon. De La
Cruz to re-file the Information against the accused herein,
among others, and also, to include the above Certification.
8.3 Thus, considering the above Certification in the
Information, in addition to the Honorable City Prosecutors
clear directive in the Memorandum dated 20 February
2014, it is without doubt that the Information in the instant
criminal case was filed with the approval of the Honorable
City Prosecutor, in faithful compliance with the Revised
Rules of Criminal Procedure.
9. As mentioned earlier, the Revised Rules o[f] Criminal
Procedure does not even specifically prescribe that the
signature of the Honorable City Prosecutor should appear
on the Information for it to be valid. What it merely
requires is the Honorable City Prosecutors PRIOR approval
or authority. To reiterate, there is nothing in the Revised
Rules o[f] Criminal Procedure that mandates the Honorable
City Prosecutor to personally affix his/her signature to the
actual Informations filed in court. (pages 4 to 7,
Resolution
Page 6 of 8
x-------------------------------x
OPPOSITION [Re: Motion to Quash dated 15 October
2014])
This
Court
concurs
with
the
stance
taken
by
the
prosecution herein. An Information filed by a qualified and

authorized officer is required for the jurisdiction of the court
over the case (Villa v. Ibanez, et al., 88 Phil 402). Contrary to
the defendants allegations, the City Prosecutor did give his
written approval for the re-filing of the Information against the
defendant through its 20 February 2014 Administrative Order
14-045 and similarly dated Memorandum, which is a patent
compliance with the prior written authority or approval of the
city prosecutor requirement in Section 4, Rule 112 of the
Revised
Rules
of
Criminal
Procedure.
Upon
the
previous
dismissal without prejudice by the Regional Trial Court Branch

57 of the City of Makati because of prosecutions failure to
satisfy the prior written authority or approval of the city
prosecutor requirement, the Investigating Officer this time,
made sure that she complies with said prerequisite by securing
a written approval and authorization by the City Prosecutor. In
the instant case, although the Resolution and the Information
did not bear the approving signature of the City Prosecutor, the
Resolution
Page 7 of 8
x-------------------------------x
filing of the same was authorized. A perusal of the Information
filed in this case reveals that it bears a certification which reads,
thus:
THIS IS TO CERTIFY that, as shown by the record
a preliminary investigation was conducted in this case
in accordance with law; that complainant and its
witnesses were personally examined by an authorized
officer; that on the basis of the sworn statements and
other evidence submitted there is reasonable ground to
believe that the crime has been committed and that the
accused is probably guilty thereof; that the accused
was given the chance to be informed of the complaint
and of the evidence submitted against her; and that
the accused was given an opportunity to submit
controverting evidence. Further, this Information is
being re-filed in compliance with the directive of the
City Prosecutor embodied in Administrative Order No.
14-045 dated February 20, 2014 and Memorandum
dated February 20, 2014. (page 2 of the 14 May 2014
Information, Emphasis supplied)
WHEREFORE, the instant Motion To Quash of herein
accused Bianca Emilia B. Hermoso is hereby DENIED for utter
lack of merit.
Accordingly, the accused and his counsel are ordered to
attend the Arraignment and Pre-Trial Conference of this case on
March 10, 2015 at 8:30 in the morning
Serve copies of this Resolution to all concerned.
SO ORDERED.
Resolution
Page 8 of 8
x-------------------------------x
Given in chambers on March 4, 2015.
HON. CESAR L. AGANON

Presiding Judge
CLA/ajc
Copy furnished:
PROS. JONATHAN M. ALDOVINO
16th Floor New City Hall Bldg.
Makati City
Atty. Patricia C. Velarde
Fornier & Fornier Law Firm
Ground Floor, Unit 8, The Gallery
Amorsolo St., Legazpi Village
Makati City
Agnes Ballesteros
c/o Paredes Garcia & Golez
Unit 1701 East Tower
Phil. Stock Exchange Center
Exchange Road, Ortigas
Pasig City
Bianca Emilia B. Hermoso
Glenhaven 2, 15/F California Gardens
Square Condo, Ubertad St.,
Mandaluyong City

Motion To Quash Hermoso

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Motion To Quash Hermoso

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Motion To Quash Hermoso

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Republic of the Philippines

National Capital Judicial Region

It is the contention of Ms. Hermoso, inter alia, that, thus;

prosecution herein. An Information filed by a qualified and

dismissal without prejudice by the Regional Trial Court Branch

HON. CESAR L. AGANON

You might also like