Girlie M. Quisay v. People or any of the division chiefs.

It merely contained a certification from ACP Dela Cruz

that the filing of the information is with the prior authority and approval of the city
FACTS: prosecutor. The certification was bare and self serving. Records do not show tat the
1. An information for the violation of Sec. 10 of RA 7610 (Special Protection of City Prosecutor had, in deed, authorized ACP dela Cruz. The CA was wrong in holding
Children Against Abuse Exploitation and Discrimination Act) was filed before that the presumption of regularity applies considering the absence of any evidence
the RTC against the petitioner. clearly showing that ACP dela Cruz had authority to file the information nor sough
2. Petitioner moved for the quashal of such on the ground of lack of authority prior written approval from those authorized to do so before filing the information.
of the person who filed the same before the RTC because the "Pasiya" issued
by the Office of City Prosecutor-Makati (OCP-Makati) was penned by Asst. For orderly administration of justice, the provisions of the ROC must be followed,
City Prosecutor(ACP) Dela Cruz and approved by Senior ACP Hirang without especially the prosecution arm of the government.
approval from any higher authority/ City Prosecutor to file the information
against her.
3. OCP-Makati argued that SACP Hirang was authorized to approve the
"Pasiya" (Resolution) pursuant to OCP-Makati Office Order No. 32.9
4. The RTC denied the motion to quash, finding that the Certification attached
to the Pabatid Sakdal (information) sufficiently complied with Sec. 4, Rule
112 of the ROC which requires prior written authority or approval by, among
others, the city prosecutor, in the filing of informations.
5. An MR was filed by the petitioner but was denied so a petition for certiorari
was filed to the CA. The CA affirmed the RTC ruling, holding that Sec. 9 of RA
10071 (Prosecution Service Act of 2010) and OCP-Makati Office Order No.
32, authorized SACP Hirang, on behalf of the City Prosecutor, to approve the
Pasiya which found probable cause against the petitioner.
6. It also held that the certification made by ACP dela Cruz in the Pabatid Saktal
indicated that the same was filed after preliminary investigation and with
prior approval of the City Prosecutor. The certification also enjoys
presumption of regularity. Thus, petitioner filed an MR which was denied
which leads us to this petition for review on certiorari.

ISSUE: WON the RTC had jurisdiction-- NO

RATIO: Sec. 4, Rule 112 of the 2000 Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure states that
a filing of a complaint or information requires a prior written authority or approval of
named officers before a complaint or information may be filed before the courts.
Without such, the information is defective and is, therefore, subject to quashal (Sec.
3, Rule 117). Such defect cannot be cured by silence, waiver, acquiescence, or even
by express consent so this ground may be raised at any stage in the proceedings
(People v Garfin).

In this case, the CA was correct that the City Prosecutor may delegate its authority to
approve the filing of the Pabatid Sakdal containing the Certification. Thus, the Pasiya
or Resolution finding probable cause against the petitioner was validly made.
However, the same could not be true as to the Pabatid Sakdal or Information before
the RTC as there was no showing that it was approved by either the City Prosecutor