GR 219325 2021

3R,epublic of tbe i)bilippine-5'
i>upreme (!Court
jffilanila
FIRST DIVISION
PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK G.R. No. 219325

Petitioner,
Present:
PERALTA, CJ.,
- versus - CAGUIOA,
CARANDANG,
ZALAMEDA, and
GAERLAN,JJ
ATTY. HENRY S. OAMINAL,

Respondent.
x------------------·-----
DECISION
GAERLAN, J.:
This is a Petition for Review on Certiorari 1 under Rule 45 of the Rules

of Court, as amended, assailing the Decision2 dated June 1, 2015 of the Court
of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 05378-MIN.
The Antecedents
Sometime in November 2001, petitioner Philippine National Bank

(petitioner) filed against respondent Atty. Henry S. Oaminal (respondent) a
complaint-affidavit for six (6) counts of Estafa and violation of Batas
Pambansa Bilang 22 (BP 22) before the Office of the City Prosecutor of
Ozamiz City, docketed as LS. Nos. 01-11-781 to 786. 3
In a Joint Resolution4 dated January 11, 2002, Prosecutor II Geronimo

S. Marave, Jr. (Prosecutor Marave) recommended the filing of charges against
Rollo, pp. 21-46.

2 Id. at 10-18; penned by Associate Justice Henri Jean Paul B. Inting (now a Member of this Court) and
concurred in by Associate Justices Edgardo A. Camello and Pablito A. Perez.
Id. at 11.
4
Id. at 51-54.
Decision 2 G.R. No. 219325
respondent for violation of BP 22. The complaint for Estafa were, however,
dismissed on the ground of insufficiency of evidence. 5
Accordingly, six (6) Informations 6 dated February 12, 2002 were filed
against respondent before the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC) of
Ozamiz City, raffled to Branch 2 thereof, and docketed as Criminal Case Nos.
5671-MTC to 5676-MTC. The accusatory portions of the Informations read
as follows:
Criminal Case No. 5671-MTC
That on November 30, 1999, in the City ofOzamiz, Philippines, and

within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused,
failing to maintain sufficient funds in or credit with the drawee bank as
payment in full upon presentment of the check, did then and there willfully,
unlawfully and knowingly make or draw and issue Metrobank, Ozamiz
Branch, Check No. 1180025128 dated November 30, I 999 covering the
amount of !'2.398,883.60 in favor of Philippine National Bank, Ozamiz
Branch represented herein by EPIFANIA C. ANIMAS which check was
issued in payment of accused (sic) obligation from said private offended
l2fil1Y but when the check was presented for payment with the drawee bank
within 90 days from date thereof, the same was dishonored for the reason:
"DRAWN AGAINST INSUFFICIENT FUNDS" (DAIF) and despite due
notice of dishonor being made and demands to make good and pay the
check, accused failed and continuously fails to make good and pay the
holder of the said check the amount due thereon or to deposit the necessary
amount to cover the same and also failed to make an arrangement for the
payment of the check in full by the drawee within five (5) banking days
after receiving the notice of dishonor, to the damage and prejudice of the
said offended party, in the aforesaid sum of !'2,398,883.60, Philippine
Currency.
CONTRARY to and in Violation of Batas Pambansa Big. 22. 7
That on February 28, 2001, in the City of Ozamiz, Philippines, and

Branch, Check No. 1180041378 dated February 28, 2001 covering the
amount of '1'2,000,000.00 in favor of Philippine National Bank, Ozamiz
issued in payment of accused (sic) obligation from said private offended
l2fil1Y but when the check was presented for payment with the drawee bank
5
Id. at 53.
6
Id. at 55-56.
7
Id. at 55.
said offended party, in the aforesaid sum of '!"2,000,000.00, Philippine
Currency.
CONTRARY to and in Violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22. 8
That on November 30, 2000, in the City of Ozamiz, Philippines, and

Branch, Check No. 1180041377 dated November 30, 2000 covering the
amount of '!"2,000,000.00 in favor of Philippine National Bank, Ozamiz
issued in payment of accused [sic) obligation from said private offended
lli!!!Y but when the check was presented for payment with the drawee bank
said offended party, in the aforesaid sum of :!'2,000,000.00, Philippine
Currency.
That on August 31, 2000, in the City of Ozamiz, Philippines, and

Branch. Check No. 1180041376 dated August 31, 2000 covering the
amount of '!"2,000,000.00 in favor of Philippine National Bank, Ozamiz
issued in payment of accused [sic) obligation from said private offended
lli!!!Y but when the check was presented for payment with the drawee bank
8
Id. at 57.
9
Id. at 59.
said offended party, in the aforesaid sum of f>2,000,000.00, Philippine
Currency.
That on May 31, 2000, in the City of Ozamiz, Philippines, and

Branch, Check No. 1180041375 dated May 31, 2000 covering the amount
of f>2,000,000.00 in favor of Philippine National Bank, Ozamiz Branch
represented herein by EPIFANIA C. ANIMAS which check was issued in
payment of accused (sic] obligation from said private offended party but
when the check was presented for payment with the drawee bank within 90
days from date thereof, the same was dishonored for the reason: "DRAWN
AGAINST INSUFFICIENT FUNDS" (DAIF) and despite due notice of
dishonor being made and demands to make good and pay the check, accused
failed and continuously fails to make good and pay the holder of the said
check the amount due thereon or to deposit the necessary amount to cover
the same and also failed to make an arrangement for the payment of the
check in full by the drawee within five (5) banking days after receiving the
notice of dishonor, to the damage and prejudice of the said offended party,
in the aforesaid sum off>2,000,000.00, Philippine Currency.
That on February 28. 2000 in the City of Ozamiz, Philippines, and

Branch, Check No. 1180025129 dated February 28, 2000 covering the
amount of f>2,398,883.60 in favor of Philippine National Bank, Ozamiz
issued in payment of accused (sic] obligation from said private offended
illfilY but when the check was presented for payment with the drawee bank
IO
Id.at 61.
11
Id. at 63.
said offended party, in the aforesaid sum of '!'2,398,883.60, Philippine
Currency.
Thereafter, respondent filed a Motion for Reinvestigation with the

Department of Justice (DOJ). 13 This prompted Regional State Prosecutor
Antonio B. Arellano (RSP Arellano) to issue Regional Order No. 02-023
dated April 16, 2002, directing Prosecutor Marave to inhibit himself from the
case and to forward to his office the entire records thereof. Thereafter, the case
was assigned to Prosecutor Carlos M. Rubin (Prosecutor Rubin). Pending the
resolution of the Motion for Reinvestigation, the Informations were
provisionally withdrawn upon the instance of respondent and Prosecutor
Rubin. 14
It appears, however, that notwithstanding the directive in Regional

Order No. 02-023, Prosecutor Marave did not stand down. On June 11, 2002,
he re-filed the Informations with the MTCC. 15 This prompted respondent to
file a Motion to Quash the same. Said motion was granted by the MTCC in its
Order 16 dated August 14, 2002. The trial court ratiocinated that since
Prosecutor Marave had already been stripped of his authority, the
Informations that he filed are mere scraps of paper that are devoid of any legal
effect.
Meanwhile, per DOJ Department Order No. 271 17 dated August 6,

2002, State Prosecutor Roberto A. Lao (State Prosecutor Lao) was designated
as the Acting City Prosecutor in charge of LS. Nos. 01-11-781 to 786.
On November 12, 2002, State Prosecutor Lao finally issued a

Resolution 18 declaring that, indeed, fonnal criminal charges for violation of
BP 22 must be filed against respondent. Resultantly, on even date, State
Prosecutor sent a letter 19 to the Clerk of Court of the MTCC ofOzamiz City,
manifesting his intention to re-file the six (6) Informations signed by
Prosecutor Marave. Thus, Criminal Case Nos. 5671-MTC to 5676-MTC were
reinstated.
12
Id. at 65.
13
Id. at I 1.
14
Id. at 24-25.
15
Id. at 25.
16
Id. at 67; rendered by Judge Rio Concepcion Achas.
17
Id. at 68.
18 Id. at 69-76.
19
ld.at77.
Respondent's first recourse to the CA
On December 2, 2002, respondent filed an Omnibus Motion and/or

Petition20 seeking, inter alia, the dismissal of the criminal cases allegedly
because there was no judicial determination of probable cause. 21 Respondent
posited that the trial court merely relied on State Prosecutor Lao's findings
when it allowed the reinstatement of the criminal cases. 22 The said Omnibus
Motion and/or Petition was denied by the MTCC in an Order23 dated January
6, 2003.
Undaunted, respondent filed a Petition for Certiorari with the Regional

Trial Court (RTC) ofOzamiz City, docketed as Sp. Civil Case No. 02-03. On
May 7, 2004, the RTC issued an Order24 dismissing the petition.
Respondent then filed a petition for review with the CA, docketed as
CA-G.R. SP No. 86534. By virtue of the CA's Resolution25 dated March 27,
2008, and upon the instance of respondent, the petition was withdrawn. As
evidenced by Entry of Judgment26 dated January 19, 2009, the said CA
Resolution had already become final and executory.
Respondent's second recourse to the

CA, which is the subject of the instant
controversy
On September 6, 2007, respondent filed with the MTCC a Motion to

Dismiss 27 the re-filed six (6) Informations, arguing that the same are not valid
because they only bear the signature of Prosecutor Marave. Thus, the said
Informations they do not bear the signature of the person who was authorized
to sign the same. 28 Respondent postured that since the Informations had
already been quashed by the MTCC in its earlier Order dated August 14, 2002,
the criminal cases had no leg to stand on. 29 The trial court denied this motion
in an Order dated November 14, 2007. Respondent's Motion for
Reconsideration was likewise denied by the MTCC in its January 10, 2008
Order. 30
20
Id. at 159-181.
"
22
ld. at 180.
Id. at 171.
23
Id. at 182.
24
Id. at 78-81; rendered by Judge Ma. Nimfa Penaco-Sitaca.
25
Id. at 82-83; penned by Associate Justice Edgardo A. Camello and concurred in by Associate Justices
Jane Aurora C. Lantion and Edgardo T. Lloren.
26
Id. at 84.
" Id. at 183-186.
28
Id. at 184.
29
Id.
30
ld. at 27-28.
On March 17, 2008, respondent then availed of the provisions of Rule

65 of the Rules of Court, filing a Petition for Certiorari, Prohibition and
Mandamus 31 with Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Ozamiz City, docketed as
Special Civil Case No. 03-08 and raffled to Branch 15 thereof. The said
petition was, however, denied by the RTC in its Decision32 dated August 8,
2011.
Respondent then filed an Omnibus Motion for Reconsideration and

Voluntary Inhibition with the RTC. His motion voluntary inhibition was
granted. The case was raffled to Branch 35 of the RTC ofOzamiz City which,
in tum, denied his motion for reconsideration in an Order3 3 dated December
18, 2012.
Aggrieved, respondent elevated the case to the CA through a Notice of

Appeal. 34
On June 1, 2015, the CA rendered the herein assailed Decision35 finding

merit in respondent's asseverations. The CA held that the trial court never
acquired jurisdiction over the criminal cases because they were signed by an
officer who was not authorized to do so.
Thus, the court a quo disposed as follows:
WHEREFORE, the instant appeal is GRANTED. The Decision of

the Regional Trial Court dated August 8, 2011 is SET ASIDE. The
proceedings before the Municipal Trial Court in Cities is DECLARED
NULL AND VOID for having been conducted without jurisdiction.
SO ORDERED. 36
Hence, the present recourse.
The Issues
Excoriating the judgment of the appellate court, petitioner argues in the

affirmative of the following issues:
31 Id. at 187-217.
32 Id. at 218-224; rendered by Judge Edmundo P. Pintac.
33
Id. at 225-232; rendered by Judge Sylvia A. Singidas-Machacon.
34
Id. at 233-234.
35 id.atJ0-18.
36 Id. at 18.
1. The [CA] (Twenty-Second Division) erred when it declared the

[I]nformations filed against [respondent] on 12 November 2002 were
void, even though the validity of the same [I]nformations was already
and finally upheld by prior judgment in a previous case docketed as Sp.
Civil Case No. 02-03, which involved the same parties and subject
matter[;]
2. The [CA] (Twenty-Second Division) erred when it nullified the

[I]nformations filed against [respondent] on 12 November 2002, even
if they were re-filed by and with the prior written authority or approval
of the Acting City Prosecutor of Ozamiz City[; and]
3. The [CA] (Twenty-Second Division) erred when it annulled the

jurisdiction of the trial court in the criminal cases below,
notwithstanding [respondent]'s active participation in the actual
proceedings. 3 7
The Ruling of the Court
The petition is impressed with merit.
The defect in the authority of the

public prosecutor to file an
Information is waivable, as in the
instant case.
In rendering the assailed Decision, the CA, citing the cases of Cudia v.
Court of Appeals, 38 Romualdez v. Sandiganbayan, 39 and People v. Garfin, 40
ratiocinated that the MTCC's jurisdiction over the criminal cases did not
attach because no new Information was filed by the proper officer vested with
the authority to do so. The infirmity in the Informations caused by Prosecutor
Marave's lack of authority cannot be cured by silence, acquiescence or
express consent, the appellate court said. Accordingly, the entire proceedings
before the MTCC were null and void. 41
We disagree.
37
Id. at 31.
38
348 Phil. 190 (1998).
39
434 Phil. 670 (2002).
40
4 70 Phil. 21 I, (2004).
41
Rollo, pp. 16-17.
0
An information is an accusation in writing charging a person with an

offense, subscribed by the prosecutor and filed with the court. 42 The due
recognition of the constitutional right of an accused to be informed of the
nature and cause of the accusation through the criminal complaint or
information is decisive of whether his prosecution for a crime stands or not. 43
In deference to the constitutional right of an accused to be informed of the
nature and the cause of the accusation against him, 44 "[a] complaint or
information is sufficient if it states the name of the accused; the designation
of the offense given by the statute; the acts or omissions complained of as
constituting the offense; the name of the offended party; the approximate date
of the commission of the offense; and the place where the offense was
committed." 45
In a litany of cases, 46 it has been held that in order for an Information

to be valid, it must possess the prior written authority or approval of the
provincial or city fiscal or chief state prosecutor, as the case may be. However,
this rule has already been expressly and unequivocally abandoned by this
Court in the recent case of Villa Gomez v. People47 (Villa Gomez).
In Villa Gomez, this Court held that the lack of authority of the
prosecutor to file an Information does not go into the jurisdiction of the court
over the subject matter. Rather, the lack of authority merely affects the
personality or locus standi of the said prosecutor. Moreover, Villa Gomez
declared that defects on the authority of the prosecutor who filed the
Information are waivable. Thus:
x x x Even assuming for the sake of argument that such prior

authority, approval or signature is required, this Court in its recent en bane
ruling in People v. Solar where all prosecutors were "instructed to state with
sufficient particularity not just the acts complained of or the acts
constituting the offense, but also the aggravating circumstances, whether
qualifying or generic, as well as any other attendant circumstances, that
would impact the penalty to be imposed on the accused should a verdict of
conviction be reached," held that failure of the accused to question the
insufficiency of an Information as to the averment of aggravating
circumstances with specific constitutes a waivable defect. Logically, if the
constitutional right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation
may be waived by the accused, then it is with more reason that the absence
of the requirement pertaining to a handling prosecutor's duty to secure a
42 REVISED RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, Rule 110, Section 4.

43 People v. Manansala, 708 Phil. 66, 68(2013).
44 Miguel v. Sandiganbayan, 690 Phil. 147, 155-156 (2012). Citing Section 6, Rule 110 of the Revised
Rules of Criminal Procedure.
45 REVISED RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, Rule 110, Section 6.
46 Abugotal v. Hon. Tiro, 160 Phil. 884 (1975); People v. Hon. Montesa, Jr., 318 Phil. 764 (1995); Joaquin,
Jr. v. Hon. Drilon, 361 Phil. 900 (1999); Abdula v. Hon. Guiani, 382 Phil. 757 (2000); Turingan v. Hon.
Garfin, 549 Phil. 903 (2007); Quisay v. People, 778 Phil. 481 (2016); Maximo v. Villapando, Jr., 809
Phil. 843 (20 l 7).
47 G.R. No. 216824, November 10, 2020.
prior written authority or approval from the provincial, city or chief state
prosecutor in the filing of an Information may also be waived.
Consistent with the foregoing observations, if some grounds for the

quashal of an Information with serious constitutional implications may be
waived, it is with more reason that the ground on securing a prior written
approval or authority from the provincial, city or chief state prosecutor,
which has nothing to do with the Bill of Rights or with the trial court's
jurisdiction to take cognizance of a case, can also be waived by the
accused. 48 (Emphasis and citations omitted; underscoring Ours.)
Here, the records show that respondent raised the validity of the subject
Informations signed by Prosecutor Marave to the CA on two separate
occasions.
Respondent first sought the appellate court's intercession through a

petition for review which was docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 86534. For
reasons unknown to this Court, he withdrew the said petition. Through Entry
of Judgment49 dated January 19, 2009, the questioned May 7, 2004 Order50 of
the RTC - a judgment on the merits which affirmed the MTCC's
reinstatement of the criminal cases filed by virtue of Prosecutor Marave's
Informations - attained finality.
Respondent's second recourse, CA-G.R. SP No. 05378-MIN, was filed

by virtue of an appeal which, as plainly evident in the instant Rule 45 petition,
was successful.
This Court finds that respondent's withdrawal of his petition in CA-

G.R. SP No. 86534 already constitutes a waiver of whatever defects the
Informations against him may have had, to the extent that his appeal to the
CA in CA-G.R. SP No. 05378-MIN should already be barred by the principles
of immutability of judgments and res judicata.
Where an appellant withdraws his appeal, he must face the

consequences of his withdrawal, such as the Decision of the court a quo
becoming final and executory. 51 The effects of the finality of a judgment was
briefly discussed by this Court in Taisei Shimizu Joint Venture v. Commission
on Audit, 52 thus:
When a court or tribunal having jurisdiction over an action renders

judgment and the same becomes final and executory, res judicata sets
48
Id.
49
Rollo, p. 84.
50
Id. at 78-8 I.
51
Southwestern Untversity v. Hon. Salvador, 179 Phil. 252 (1979).
52
G.R. No. 238671, June 2, 2020.
in Norkis Trading Corp. v. Buenavista explains:
xx x Res judicata is defined as a matter adjudged; a

thing judicially acted upon or decided; a thing or matter
settled by judgment. Under this doctrine, an existing final
judgment or decree rendered on the merits, and without fraud
or collusion, by a court of competent jurisdiction, upon any
matter within its jurisdiction, is conclusive of the rights of
the parties or their privies, in all other actions or suits in the
same or any other judicial tribunal of concurrent jurisdiction
on the. points and matters in issue in the first suit. To state
simply, a final judgment or decree on the merits by a court
of competent jurisdiction is conclusive of the rights of the
parties or their privies in all later suits on all points and
matters determined in the former suit.
Res judicata has two aspects: bar by prior judgment

and conclusiveness of judgment as provided under Section
47 (b) and (c), Rule 39, respectively, of the Rules of
Court. Under the doctrine of conclusiveness of judgment,
facts and issues actually and directly resolved in a former
suit cannot be raised in any future case between the same
parties, even if the latter suit may involve a different cause
of action.
Res judicata and immutability of final judgments are closely

intertwined. Jurisprudence teaches:
The settled and firmly established rule is that a

decision that has acquired finality becomes immutable and
unalterable. This quality of immutability precludes the
modification of the judgment, even if the modification is
meant to correct erroneous conclusions of fact and law. The
orderly administration of justice requires that, at the risk of
occasional errors, the judgments/resolutions of a court must
reach a point of finality set by the law. The noble purpose is
to write finis to disputes once and for all. This is a
fundamental principle in our justice system, without which
no end to litigations will take place. Utmost respect and
adherence to this principle must always be maintained by
those who exercise the power of adjudication. Any act that
violates such principle must immediately be struck down.
Indeed, the principle of conclusiveness of prior adjudications
is not confined in its operation to the judgments of
courts, but extends as well to those of all other tribunals
exercising adjudicatory powers. 53 (Emphasis and citations
omitted.)
Indeed, the CA transgressed the limits of its authority when it made a

pronouncement that starkly departs from a matter that is already the subject
of a prior judgment which had long attained finality. The moment respondent
53
Id.
withdrew his petition in CA-G.R. SP No. 86534, he had already waived his
right to question the propriety of the subject Informations.
At any rate, the subject Informations

are valid, being bereft of any defects
as would deprive the MJ'CC of its
jurisdiction over the criminal cases
against respondent.
Although the subject Informations only bear the signature of Prosecutor

Marave, the same were re-filed under the direction of State Prosecutor Lao.
While respondent does not dispute State Prosecutor Lao's designation as the
prosecutor in charge of the case, he argues that in order for the criminal cases
to be revived, new Informations bearing State Prosecutor Lao's signature
should have been filed with the MTCC.
Respondent's position is untenable.
It bears stressing that when State Prosecutor Lao was given authority
over LS. Nos. 01-11-781 to 786, he was designated as Acting City Prosecutor
ofOzamiz City. 54
In Villa Gomez, this Court declared that "the authority of a handling

prosecutor need not be shown in the face of the Information itself if it is duly
established that the provincial, city or chief state prosecutor approved the
underlying Resolution recommending the indictment." 55
Here, State Prosecutor Lao himself, as Acting City Prosecutor, ordered

the reinstatement of the subject Informations. This act is already sufficient to
vest upon the trial court jurisdiction over the subject matter of the criminal
cases. To require State Prosecutor Lao to refile the exact same Informations,
the only difference being the signatures appearing thereon, would be, as Villa
Gomez stressed, "to impose a redundant and pointless requirement on the
Prosecution."56
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The assailed Decision

dated June 1, 2015 of the Court of Appeals in in CA-G.R. SP No. 05378-MIN
is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The Municipal Trial Court in Cities
of Ozamiz City, Branch 2, is DIRECTED to RESUME its proceedings in
Criminal Case Nos. 5671-MTC to 5676-MTC with deliberate dispatch.
54
Rollo, p. 68.
55
Villa Gomez v. People, supra note 47.
56
Id.
\
SOO.Ri;>ERED.
\.
g ~
s~MuEuZG~AN
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
Associate Justice
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, I certify that

the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before
the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court's Division.

GR 219325 2021

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

GR 219325 2021

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

GR 219325 2021

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

3R,epublic of tbe i)bilippine-5'

PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK G.R. No. 219325

ATTY. HENRY S. OAMINAL,

This is a Petition for Review on Certiorari 1 under Rule 45 of the Rules

Sometime in November 2001, petitioner Philippine National Bank

In a Joint Resolution4 dated January 11, 2002, Prosecutor II Geronimo

Rollo, pp. 21-46.

Criminal Case No. 5671-MTC

That on November 30, 1999, in the City ofOzamiz, Philippines, and

CONTRARY to and in Violation of Batas Pambansa Big. 22. 7

Criminal Case No. 5672-MTC

That on February 28, 2001, in the City of Ozamiz, Philippines, and

CONTRARY to and in Violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22. 8

Criminal Case No. 5673-MTC

That on November 30, 2000, in the City of Ozamiz, Philippines, and

CONTRARY to and in Violation of Batas Pambansa Big. 22. 9

Criminal Case No. 5674-MTC

That on August 31, 2000, in the City of Ozamiz, Philippines, and

CONTRARY to and in Violation of Batas Pambansa Big. 22. 10

Criminal Case No. 5675-MTC

That on May 31, 2000, in the City of Ozamiz, Philippines, and

CONTRARY to and in Violation of Batas Pambansa Big. 22. 11

Criminal Case No. 5676-MTC

That on February 28. 2000 in the City of Ozamiz, Philippines, and

CONTRARY to and in Violation of Batas Pambansa Big. 22. 12

Thereafter, respondent filed a Motion for Reinvestigation with the

It appears, however, that notwithstanding the directive in Regional

Meanwhile, per DOJ Department Order No. 271 17 dated August 6,

On November 12, 2002, State Prosecutor Lao finally issued a

Respondent's first recourse to the CA

On December 2, 2002, respondent filed an Omnibus Motion and/or

Undaunted, respondent filed a Petition for Certiorari with the Regional

Respondent's second recourse to the

On September 6, 2007, respondent filed with the MTCC a Motion to

On March 17, 2008, respondent then availed of the provisions of Rule

Respondent then filed an Omnibus Motion for Reconsideration and

Aggrieved, respondent elevated the case to the CA through a Notice of

On June 1, 2015, the CA rendered the herein assailed Decision35 finding

Thus, the court a quo disposed as follows:

WHEREFORE, the instant appeal is GRANTED. The Decision of

Hence, the present recourse.

Excoriating the judgment of the appellate court, petitioner argues in the

1. The [CA] (Twenty-Second Division) erred when it declared the

2. The [CA] (Twenty-Second Division) erred when it nullified the

3. The [CA] (Twenty-Second Division) erred when it annulled the

The Ruling of the Court

The petition is impressed with merit.

The defect in the authority of the

An information is an accusation in writing charging a person with an

In a litany of cases, 46 it has been held that in order for an Information

x x x Even assuming for the sake of argument that such prior

42 REVISED RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, Rule 110, Section 4.

Consistent with the foregoing observations, if some grounds for the

Respondent first sought the appellate court's intercession through a

Respondent's second recourse, CA-G.R. SP No. 05378-MIN, was filed

This Court finds that respondent's withdrawal of his petition in CA-

Where an appellant withdraws his appeal, he must face the

When a court or tribunal having jurisdiction over an action renders