Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 90 views

    Tolentino Vs Poque (Digest) G.R. NO. 150606 JUNE 7, 2007 Facts

    Uploaded by

    Ammie Asturias
    1) Petitioner State Prosecutor Tolentino filed charges against private respondent Benedict Tecklo for failing to remit SSS premiums to his employee. 2) Private respondent filed a motion to quash on the basis that Petitioner did not have authority to commence prosecution without approval of the City Prosecutor where the crime took place. 3) The court ruled in favor of granting the motion to quash, as Petitioner's designation as Special Prosecutor by the Regional State Prosecutor was not one of the law officers authorized to approve filing an information according to the Rules of Court, and thus Petitioner did not have valid authority to file the charges.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Tolentino Vs Poque (Digest) G.R. NO. 150606 JUNE 7, 2007 Facts

    Uploaded by

    Ammie Asturias
    90 views2 pages
    1) Petitioner State Prosecutor Tolentino filed charges against private respondent Benedict Tecklo for failing to remit SSS premiums to his employee. 2) Private respondent filed a motion to quash on the basis that Petitioner did not have authority to commence prosecution without approval of the City Prosecutor where the crime took place. 3) The court ruled in favor of granting the motion to quash, as Petitioner's designation as Special Prosecutor by the Regional State Prosecutor was not one of the law officers authorized to approve filing an information according to the Rules of Court, and thus Petitioner did not have valid authority to file the charges.

    Original Title

    A1. Tolentino vs Poque.pdf

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1) Petitioner State Prosecutor Tolentino filed charges against private respondent Benedict Tecklo for failing to remit SSS premiums to his employee. 2) Private respondent filed a motion to quash on the basis that Petitioner did not have authority to commence prosecution without approval of the City Prosecutor where the crime took place. 3) The court ruled in favor of granting the motion to quash, as Petitioner's designation as Special Prosecutor by the Regional State Prosecutor was not one of the law officers authorized to approve filing an information according to the Rules of Court, and thus Petitioner did not have valid authority to file the charges.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    90 views2 pages

    Tolentino Vs Poque (Digest) G.R. NO. 150606 JUNE 7, 2007 Facts

    Uploaded by

    Ammie Asturias
    1) Petitioner State Prosecutor Tolentino filed charges against private respondent Benedict Tecklo for failing to remit SSS premiums to his employee. 2) Private respondent filed a motion to quash on the basis that Petitioner did not have authority to commence prosecution without approval of the City Prosecutor where the crime took place. 3) The court ruled in favor of granting the motion to quash, as Petitioner's designation as Special Prosecutor by the Regional State Prosecutor was not one of the law officers authorized to approve filing an information according to the Rules of Court, and thus Petitioner did not have valid authority to file the charges.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 2

    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.

    You might also like