G.R. No.

214925, April 26, 2017 relative to the registration of contracts to sell and deeds of
sale (Sec. 17), time of completion (Sec. 20) and issuance
JOHN LABSKY P. MAXIMO AND ROBERT M. of title (Sec. 25) with respect to the aforementioned
PANGANIBAN, Petitioners, v. FRANCISCO Z. condominium unit.
VILLAPANDO, JR., Respondents.
The said criminal complaint for Violation of Sections 17, 20
G.R. No. 214965, April 26, 2017 and 25 was dismissed by the OCP-Makati in its
Resolution10 dated July 12, 2011 on the ground that prior
FRANCISCO Z. VILLAPANDO, to the estimated date of completion of the condominium
JR., Petitioners, v. MAKATI CITY PROSECUTION unit, ASB encountered liquidity problems and instituted a
OFFICE, JOHN LABSKY P. MAXIMO AND ROBERT M. petition for rehabilitation with the Securities and Exchange
PANGANIBAN, Respondents. Commission (SEC) which showed good faith on the part of
ASB.11
DECISION
On February 24, 2011, Maximo instituted a
PERALTA, J.: Complaint12 for Perjury, Incriminating Innocent Person and
Unjust Vexation against Villapando docketed as NPS-No.
Before us are consolidated petitions for review XV-05-INV-11-B-00509. The complaint was assigned to
on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court assailing Assistant City Prosecutor (ACP) Evangeline Viudez-
the Decision1 dated June 13, 2014, and Resolution2 dated Canobas.13
October 16, 2014 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R.
SP No. 131085 which reversed the Decision3 dated May On October 10, 2011, Panganiban also filed a
30, 2013 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 150, Complaint14 for Perjury and Unjust Vexation against
Makati City in Special Civil Action No. 13-473. The RTC Villapando docketed as NPS-No. XV-05-INV-11-C-00601.
affirmed the Order4 of the Metropolitan Trial Court The complaint was assigned to ACP Benjamin S. Vermug,
(METC), Branch 67, Makati City denying the Motion to Jr.15
Quash filed by petitioner Francisco Z. Villapando, Jr.
(Villapando). The common allegation in the complaints of Maximo and
Panganiban was that Villapando committed perjury when
The factual antecedents are as follows: the latter alleged in the complaint he filed against them
that they were officers and directors of ASB at the time the
Villapando is the assignee of Enhanced Electronics and Deed of Sale was executed between ASB and Enhanced
Communications Services, Inc. of Condominium Unit No. Electronics on February 28, 1997. They claimed that they
2821 and parking slot at the Legazpi Place in Makati City. were not even employees of ASB in 1997 as they were
Petitioners John Labsky P. Maximo (Maximo) and Robert both minors at that time.
M. Panganiban (Panganiban) are Directors of ASB Realty
Corporation (now, St. Francis Square Realty Corp.), the After the filing of the Counter-Affidavit,16 Reply-
developer of the said condominium unit.5 Affidavit,17 and Rejoinder-Affidavit,18 ACP Canobas issued
a Resolution19 (Canobas Resolution) on August 3, 2011
On November 23, 2010, Villapando filed before the Office finding probable cause against Villapando for the crime of
of the City Prosecutor of Makati City (OCP-Makati), a perjury but dismissed the complaints for unjust vexation
complaint6 against Maximo and Panganiban and other and incriminating innocent person. The Resolution was
directors/officers of ASB Realty Corp. (ASB) for Violation approved20 by Senior Assistant City Prosecutor (SACP)
of Sections 17,7 208 and 259 of Presidential Decree (P.D.) Christopher Garvida.
No. 957, otherwise known as the Subdivision and
Condominium Buyer's Protective Decree. Accordingly, on August 15, 2011, an Information21 dated
July 26, 2011 for Perjury was filed against Villapando
Villapando alleged in his complaint that there was failure before Branch 67 of the METC, Makati City. The
on the part of Maximo and Panganiban and the other Information was signed by ACP Canobas and sworn to
directors/officers of ASB to comply with PD No. 957 before ACP Benjamin S. Vermug, Jr.
Meanwhile, on August 31, 2011,Villapando filed a Motion October 14, 2011 and its Supplements (to Motion to
for Partial Reconsideration22 of the Canobas Resolution Quash Information) dated October 19, 2011.
before the OCP-Makati alleging that the Information was
filed without the prior written authority of the City SO ORDERED.29
Prosecutor. He also stated that violations of Sections 17,
20 and 25 are committed not at the time of the execution Villapando moved for reconsideration30of the Order of the
of the contract to sell but after the execution of the METC dated November 11, 2011. Maximo and
contract, and that there is no allegation in his complaint- Panganiban opposed31 the motion and Villapando
affidavit that Maximo was part of the "scheme in the replied32 thereto. Also, a supplement33 to the motion was
execution of the contract to sell." filed on June 14, 2012.

Pending resolution of the aforesaid motion for partial Meanwhile, after an exchange of pleadings - counter-
reconsideration, a warrant of arrest against Villapando affidavit,34 reply-affidavit,35 and rejoinder-affidavit,36 ACP
was issued by the METC.23 On October 14, 2011, Vermug, Jr. issued a Resolution37 (Vermug Resolution) in
Villapando filed a Motion to Quash Information24 alleging NPS-No. XV-05-INV-11-C-00601 on January 13, 2012
that the person who filed the Information had no authority finding probable cause against Villapando for the crime of
to do so. He asserted that the Information, as well as the perjury but dismissed the complaint for unjust vexation.
Resolution finding probable cause against him, did not The Resolution was approved38 by Senior Assistant City
bear the approval of the City Prosecutor of Makati, Prosecutor (SACP) Christopher Garvida who
Feliciano Aspi, which is contrary to Section 4 of Rule 112 recommended for the filing of an Amended Information
of the Rules of Court. before the METC to include Panganiban as one of the
complainants.
On October 20, 2011, Villapando filed a Supplemental
Motion to Quash Information25 on the ground that the facts Thus, on January 19, 2012, the prosecution filed a Motion
charged do not constitute an offense. According to to Amend the Information and to Admit Attached
Villapando, violations of Sections 17, 20 and 25 of P.D. Information39 to include Panganiban as one of the
No. 957 are continuing crimes, hence, the allegations in complainants in the case.
the Information do not constitute an offense and a quashal
of the same is warranted. At this point, for a clear reading of the subsequent
procedural incidents, We separately state the proceedings
After the filing of the Consolidated Opposition26 by Maximo before the Department of Justice (DOJ) from the
and Panganiban, as well as the Reply27thereto filed by proceedings before the courts.
Villapando, the METC denied the Motion to Quash in an
Order28 dated November 11, 2011. The METC ruled that Proceedings before the DOJ:
the presumption of regularity in the performance of official
functions should be appreciated in favor of the public As earlier stated, the Canobas Resolution pertains to the
prosecutors. It found that the certification by ACP complaint for perjury filed by Maximo against Villapando
Canobas in the Information stating that the filing of the which gave rise to the filing of the Information before the
Information was with the prior authority of the City MeTC, but a motion to partially reconsider the said
Prosecutor constitutes substantial compliance with the resolution was filed by Villapando.
rules. As to the allegation that the facts charged do not
constitute an offense, the METC held that the elements of
On the other hand, the Vermug Resolution pertains to the
the crime of perjury were sufficiently alleged in the
complaint for perjury filed by Panganiban against
Information. The decretal  portion of the METC Decision
Villapando which gave rise to the filing of an Amended
states:
Information. On February 13, 2012, Villapando filed a
Motion for Partial Reconsideration40 of the Vermug
WHEREFORE, considering that this case can still be Resolution before the OCP-Makati.
heard and threshed out in a full blown trial, the Court
DENIES the Motion to Quash the Information dated
On February, 21, 2012, the OCP-Makati issued an
Order41 denying Villapando's Motion for Partial
Reconsideration of the Canobas Resolution. The Order Restraining Order and/or Writ of Preliminary
stated that there was prior written authority for the City Injunction)49 assailing the Orders of the METC dated
Prosecutor in filing the Information by virtue of Office November 11, 2011 and February 11, 2013. A
Order No. 32 dated July 29, 2011. The finding of probable Comment50 thereto was filed by Maximo and Panganiban,
cause was also affirmed. The Order was approved by City and a Reply to Comment51 was filed by Villapando.
Prosecutor Feliciano Aspi.
Subsequently, on May 30, 2013, the RTC issued a
Likewise, on March 20, 2012, the OCP-Makati issued an Decision, the dispositive portion of which states, thus:
Order42 denying Villapando's Motion for Partial
Reconsideration43 of the Vermug Resolution. The said WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The assailed 11
Order merely reiterated the ruling in the Order dated November 2011 order of respondent Judge in Crim. Case
February 21, 2012 denying the Motion for Partial No. 36741 which denied petitioner's Motion to Quash the
Reconsideration of the Canobas Resolution. The said Information with supplement and the order dated February
Order was also approved by City Prosecutor Feliciano 11, 2013 which denied petitioner's Motion for
Aspi. Reconsideration and granted the Public Prosecutor's
motion to amend Information and admit attached amended
Aggrieved, Villapando filed separate petitions for review of Information are AFFIRMED.
the Canobas Resolution and the Vermug Resolution dated
March 31, 201244and May 7, 2012,45 respectively, before SO ORDERED.52
the DOJ. He stated in the petitions the same allegations in
his motions for partial reconsideration. In addition, he The RTC ratiocinated that from the denial of the motion to
contended that there was even no proof that Maximo and quash, Villapando should have gone to trial without
Panganiban were still minors at the time of the execution prejudice to reiterating his special defenses invoked in his
of the contract to sell because they did not submit any motion. In the event that an adverse decision is rendered,
birth certificate. an appeal therefrom should be the next legal step.
Nonetheless, it found that the presumption of regularity
On November 28, 2013, a Resolution46 was issued by exists in the filing of the information on the basis of the
Prosecutor General Claro A. Arellano denying the petitions certification of ACP Canobas and ACP Vermug, Jr.,
for review filed by Villapando for failure to append to the coupled with the approval of the resolution by Garvida,
petitions proof that a motion to suspend proceedings has stating that the filing of the Information was with the prior
been filed in court. The copies of the resolution and the authority of the City Prosecutor. The RTC posited that the
complaint affidavit were likewise declared not verified. presumption has not been disputed by the City
Prosecutor.
Proceedings before the courts:
Undaunted, a Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition53 dated
As previously mentioned, Villapando moved to reconsider July 31, 2013 was filed by Villapando before the CA. He
the denial of his motion to quash the Information before raised before the CA the same issues: a) that the
the METC. In an Order47 dated February 11, 2013, the Information was filed without the prior written authority of
METC denied Villapando's motion for reconsideration the City Prosecutor; b) that the facts charged do not
thereby affirming the validity of the information, and at the constitute an offense. A comment54 on the petition was
same time, granted the prosecution's Motion to Amend the filed by Maximo and Panganiban and a Reply55 thereto
Information. was filed by Villapando.

The Amended Information48 was signed by ACP Before the CA, the parties filed their respective Formal
Evangeline P. Viudez-Canobas and sworn to before ACP Offer of Exhibits dated January 10, 2014 and January 14,
Benjamin S. Vermug, Jr. 201456 for Villapando and Maximo and Panganiban,
respectively.57 The parties also filed their respective
On April 25, 2013, Villapando elevated the case to the memoranda.58
RTC of Makati City via a Petition for Certiorari and
Prohibition (with Prayer for Issuance of Temporary
On June 13, 2014, the CA rendered a Decision reversing First Reason
the RTC Decision. The fallo of the CA Decision states:
THE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED ERROR WHEN
WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby GRANTED. The IT TOOK COGNIZANCE OF RESPONDENT'S PETITION
Decision of the Regional Trial Court of Makati City, Branch FOR CERTIORARI FILED UNDER RULE 65 BECAUSE -
150, in Special Civil Action No. 13-473 is
hereby REVERSED AND SET ASIDE. Criminal Case No. a. IT IS A WRONG REMEDY; 
367041 pending in Branch 67, Metropolitan Trial Court,
Makati City is hereby DISMISSED WITHOUT b. THE RESPONDENT'S FAILURE TO
PREJUDICE to the filing of new Information by an IMPLEAD THE PEOPLE OF THE
authorized officer. PHILIPPINES, BEING AN
INDISPENSABLE PARTY,
SO ORDERED.59 WARRANTED THE DISMISSAL OF
THE PETITION: 
Despite the dismissal of the case for perjury filed against
him, and considering that the dismissal was without c. THE PETITION WAS ACCOMPANIED
prejudice to the filing of a new information against him, BY A FALSE VERIFICATION.
Villapando moved for a partial reconsideration60 of the CA
Decision. Villapando argued that the CA did not resolve Second Reason
the second issue he brought before it, that is, that the facts
charged do not constitute an offense. A Comment61 to the THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED WHEN IT HELD
motion was filed by Maximo and Panganiban. THAT THE RESPONDENT'S PETITION FOR
Villapando62 replied to the comment. CERTIORARI FILED BEFORE THE REGIONAL TRIAL
COURT WAS PROPERLY FILED;
On the other hand, Maximo and Panganiban, as the
private complainants in the aforesaid case for perjury, filed Third Reason
against Villapando also moved for reconsideration63 on the
dismissal of the case by the CA. An Opposition64 thereto THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED WHEN IT HELD
was filed by Villapando. THAT THE RESPONDENT DID NOT COMMIT FORUM
SHOPPING DESPITE HIS FILING OF A PETITION FOR
On October 16, 2014, the motions for reconsideration filed REVIEW BEFORE THE SECRETARY OF JUSTICE
by both parties were denied by the CA. INVOLVING THE SAME PARTIES, FACTS, ISSUES AND
RELIEFS; and
Subsequently, Maximo and Panganiban filed a petition for
review on certiorari65 before this Court docketed as G.R. Fourth Reason
No. 214925. Villapando followed suit and its petition66 was
docketed as G.R. No. 214965. THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED WHEN IT HELD
THAT THE TWO INFORMATIONS WERE NOT
A Motion to Consolidate67 the two cases was filed by PROPERLY FILED DESPITE THE FACT THAT THEIR
Villapando on April 29, 2015. In this Court's FILING AS WELL AS THE RESOLUTIONS
Resolution68 dated July 13, 2015, We ordered the RECOMMENDING THEIR FILING WERE MADE WITH
consolidation considering that the two cases "have PRIOR AUTHORITY OF THE CITY PROSECUTOR AND
common facts and are rooted in the same issues." AFFIRMED BY THE CITY PROSECUTOR WHEN HE
SUBSEQUENTLY DENIED THE RESPONDENT'S
G.R. No. 214925 MOTIONS FOR PARTIAL RECONSIDERATION ON THE
ASSAILED RESOLUTIONS.69
We first resolve the petition filed by Maximo and
Panganiban which is anchored on the following assigned Maximo and Panganiban asserted in their petition that the
errors: denial of a petition for certiorari  is a final order, such that,
the remedy of the aggrieved party on a final order is to
appeal the same. Even assuming that certiorari is Makati City Prosecution Office before the RTC and by the
available, the petition with the CA should have not been Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) before the CA, and
allowed for failure to file the requisite motion for were duly furnished with copies of all the pleadings.
reconsideration with the RTC prior to the filing of the
petition. They also argued that since an action must be In the Reply72 of Maximo and Panganiban, they insisted
brought against indispensable parties, the instant petition that for failure to implead the People in the petition with
should be dismissed for failure to implead the People in the CA, the CA did not acquire jurisdiction over the parties.
the petition before the RTC and the CA.
In the petition filed by Maximo and Villapando, the core
Maximo and Panganiban further averred that Villapando issue for this Court's resolution relates to the validity of the
committed forum shopping because the issues raised Amended Information at bar.
before the CA were the same issues brought before the
DOJ on a petition for review. They also pointed out that Section 4, Rule 112 of the 2000 Revised Rules on
the petition filed with the CA was prepared only on July 31, Criminal Procedure states that the filing of a complaint or
2013, but the verification was executed on June 20, 2013, information requires a prior written authority or approval of
or forty-one (41) days prior to the preparation of the the named officers therein before a complaint or
petition. information may be filed before the courts, viz.:

Maximo and Panaganiban also contended that the Section 4. Resolution of investigating prosecutor and its
Information bears the certification that the filing of the review. - If the investigating prosecutor finds cause to hold
same has the prior authority or approval of the City the respondent for trial, he shall prepare the resolution and
Prosecutor. The non-presentation of DOJ Office Order No. information. He shall certify under oath in the information
32 which was the basis of the authority in filing the that he, or as shown by the record, an authorized officer,
Information is immaterial on the ground that public officers has personally examined the complainant and his
enjoy the presumption of regularity in the performance of witnesses; that there is reasonable ground to believe that
their functions. They also pointed out that the issuance of a crime has been committed and that the accused is
the Order of the City Prosecutor himself denying probably guilty thereof; that the accused was informed of
Villapando's Partial Motion for Reconsideration, in effect, the complaint and of the evidence submitted against him;
affirmed the validity of the Information filed.70 and that he was given an opportunity to submit
controverting evidence. Otherwise, he shall recommend
In the Comment71 to the Petition filed by Villapando, he the dismissal of the complaint.
countered that under the circumstances of the case,
appeal is not the plain, speedy and adequate remedy in Within five (5) days from his resolution, he shall forward
the ordinary cause of law, hence, certiorarimay validly lie. the record of the case to the provincial or city prosecutor
He explained that this case stemmed from a complaint or chief state prosecutor, or to the Ombudsman or his
that he filed with the OCP Makati City against Maximo and deputy in cases of offenses cognizable by
Panganiban as directors of ASB for violations of Sections the Sandiganbayan in the exercise of its original
17, 20 and 25 of P.D. No. 957. He believed that the instant jurisdiction. They shall act on the resolution within ten (10)
complaint was merely filed in retaliation to his earlier days from their receipt thereof and shall immediately
complaint. inform the parties of such action.

Villapando declared that the petition was properly verified. No complaint or information may be filed or dismissed by
He stated that during the Oral Argument before the CA on an investigating prosecutor without the prior written
January 7, 2014, he narrated that his counsel explained to authority or approval of the provincial or city prosecutoror
him the contents of the draft of the petition, and the chief state prosecutor or the Ombudsman or his deputy.
original of the verification page was earlier sent to him for
his perusal and signature. After reading the draft, he x x x73
immediately signed the final form/original of the verification
because he had then a scheduled trip abroad. He also Thus, as a general rule, complaints or informations filed
emphasized that the People was represented by the before the courts without the prior written authority or
approval of the foregoing authorized officers render the Corporation conspired with the other officers in the
same defective and, therefore, subject to quashal commission of the crime of violation of P.D 957 for
pursuant to Section 3 (d), Rule 117 of the same Rules, to entering into the contract to sell with Enhanced Electronics
wit: & Communication Services, Inc. involving the
condominium unit and failure to register the sale and to
Section 3. Grounds. The accused may move to quash the complete the project and to deliver the title over the unit,
complaint or information on any of the following grounds: when in truth and in fact as the said accused very well
knew at the time he swore to and signed the said
(a) That the facts charged do not constitute an offense; complaint that said statement appearing therein were false
(b) That the court trying the case has no jurisdiction over and untrue because at the time when the contract to sell
the offense charged; was made between the parties, complainants were not
(c) That the court trying the case has no jurisdiction over even an employee/officers of the ASB Realty Corporation
the person of the accused;  and was still under age, and the above false statements
(d) That the officer who filed the information had no were made in order to impute complainants to a crime
authority to do so;  they did not commit, to their damage and prejudice.
(e) That it does not conform substantially to the prescribed
form; CONTRARY TO LAW.
(f) That more than one offense is charged except when a
single punishment for various offenses is prescribed by (signed) 
law;   BENJAMIN S. VERMUG, JR. 
(g) That the criminal action or liability has been Assistant City Prosecutor
extinguished; 
(h) That it contains averments which, if true, would
constitute a legal excuse or justification; and I HEREBY CERTIFY that I have conducted a preliminary
(i) That the accused has been previously convicted or investigation in this case in accordance with law; that I
acquitted of the offense charged, or the case against him have, or as shown by the record, an authorized officer has
was dismissed or otherwise terminated without his personally examined complainant and witnesses, that on
express consent.74 the basis of sworn statements and other evidence
submitted before me there is reasonable ground to believe
that the crime has been committed and that accused is
In the case at bar, Villapando is charged in the Amended
probably guilty thereof, that accused was informed of the
Information which reads:
complaint and of the evidence submitted against him and
was given the opportunity to submit controverting
AMENDED INFORMATION evidence. I further certify that the filing of this Information
is with the prior authority or approval of the City
The undersigned Prosecutor accuses FRANCISCO Z. Prosecutor.
VILLAPANDO of the crime of perjury under THE
REVISED PENAL CODE art. 183, committed as follows:
(signed) 
  BENJAMIN S. VERMUG, JR. 
On or about the 23  of November 2010, in the city of
rd
Assistant City Prosecutor
Makati, the Philippines, accused, did then and there
willfully, unlawfully, feloniously and falsely subscribe and
swear to a complaint-affidavit docketed as NPS No. XV- SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this 26th day of
05-INV-10K-03327 before Assistant City Prosecutor July 2011 in the City of Makati.
Andres N. Marcos of the Office of the City Prosecutor at
Makati, a duly appointed, qualified, and acting as such, (signed) 
and in which complaint, said accused subscribed and   EVANGELINE P. VIUDEZ-CANOBAS
swore to, among other things, facts known to him to be Assistant City Prosecutor
untrue, that is: complainants John Labsky P. Maximo
and Robert M. Panganiban were one of the officers of
Maximo and Panganiban argued in their petition that the
ASB Realty Corporation and/or St. Francis Square Realty
CA erred in holding that the Information did not comply
with the rule requiring prior written authority or approval of OCP-Makati Office Order No. 32, which gave division
the City or Provincial Prosecutor. They pointed out that the chiefs or review prosecutors "authority to approve or act
Information bears the certification that the filing of the on any resolution, order, issuance, other action, and any
same had the prior authority or approval of the City information recommended by any prosecutor for
Prosecutor who is the officer authorized to file information approval," without necessarily diminishing the City
in court. According to them, there is a presumption that Prosecutor's authority to act directly in appropriate cases.
prior written authority or approval of the City Prosecutor By virtue of the foregoing issuances, the City Prosecutor
was obtained in the filing of the Information, such that, the validly designated SACP Hirang, Deputy City Prosecutor
non-presentation of Office Order No. 32, which was the Emmanuel D. Medina, and Senior Assistant City
alleged basis of the authority in filing the Information, is Prosecutor William Celestino T. Uy as review prosecutors
immaterial. for the OCP-Makati.

In the cases of People v. Garfin,75Turingan v. In this light, the Pasiya or Resolution finding probable
Garfin,76 and Tolentino v. Paqueo,77 this Court had already cause to indict petitioner of the crime charged, was validly
rejected similarly-worded certifications uniformly holding made as it bore the approval of one of the designated
that, despite such certifications, the Informations were review prosecutors for OCP-Makati, SACP Hirang, as
defective as it was shown that the officers filing the same evidenced by his signature therein.
in court either lacked the authority to do so or failed to
show that they obtained prior written authority from any of In the case at bar, if indeed there was no proof of valid
those authorized officers enumerated in Section 4, Rule delegation of authority as found by the CA, We are
112 of the 2000 Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure.78 constrained not to accord the presumption of regularity in
the performance of official functions in the filing of the
Therefore, there must be a demonstration that prior written Amended Information. The CA ruling states:
delegation or authority was given by the city prosecutor to
the assistant city prosecutor to approve the filing of the x x x We scoured the records of the case and We did not
information. We have recognized this valid delegation of find a copy of the purported Office Order No, 32 allegedly
authority in the case of Quisay v. People,79viz.: authorizing the Assistant City Prosecutor to sign in behalf
of the city prosecutor. While We, too, are not oblivious of
In the case at bar, the CA affirmed the denial of the enormous responsibility and the heavy volume of work
petitioner's motion to quash on the grounds that: (a) the by our prosecutors, We believe that such reality does not
City Prosecutor of Makati may delegate its authority to excuse them to comply with the mandatory requirement
approve the filing of the Pabatid Sakdal  pursuant to stated in our rules of procedure. Moreover, the said Office
Section 9 of RA 10071, as well as OCP-Makati Office Order No. 32 is not a matter of judicial notice, hence, a
Order No. 32; and (b) the Pabatid Sakdal contained a copy of the same must be presented in order for the court
Certification stating that its filing before the RTC was with to have knowledge of the contents of which. In the
the prior written authority or approval from the City absence thereof, We find that there was no valid
Prosecutor. delegation of the authority by the City Prosecutor to its
Assistant Prosecutor.80
The CA correctly held that based on the wordings of
Section 9 of RA 10071, which gave the City Prosecutor xxxx
the power to "[investigate and/or cause to be
investigated all charges of crimes, misdemeanors and Applying the foregoing lessons from our jurisprudence, We
violations of penal laws and ordinances within their certainly cannot equate the approval of the Assistant City
respective jurisdictions, and have the necessary Prosecutor to that of his superior. Clearly, we see nothing
information or complaint prepared or made and in the record which demonstrates the prior written
filed against the persons accused," he may indeed delegation or authority given by the city prosecutor to the
delegate his power to his subordinates as he may deem assistant city prosecutor to approve the filing of the
necessary in the interest of the prosecution service. The information.
CA also correctly stressed that it is under the auspice of
this provision that the City Prosecutor of Makati issued
For the lack of such prior written authority, the inescapable not only as an error committed by the trial court but as an
result is that the court did not acquire jurisdiction over the added ground to overturn the latter's ruling.88
case because there is a defect in the Information. It is for
the same reason that there is no point in compelling In this case, Villapando did not proceed to trial but opted
petitioner to undergo trial under a defective information to immediately question the denial of his motion to quash
that could never be the basis of a valid conviction.81 via a special civil action for certiorari  under Rule 65 of the
Rules of Court.
Furthermore, We find untenable the argument of Maximo
and Panganiban that the issuance of the Order dated It is also settled that a special civil action for certiorari  and
February 21, 2012, bearing the signature of the City prohibition is not the proper remedy to assail the denial of
Prosecutor, denying Villapando's Partial Motion for a motion to quash an information. The established rule is
Reconsideration, in effect, affirmed the validity of the that when such an adverse interlocutory order is rendered,
Information filed.82 the remedy is not to resort forthwith to certiorari or
prohibition, but to continue with the case in due course
The case of People v. Garfin,83firmly instructs that the filing and, when an unfavorable verdict is handed down, to take
of an Information by an officer without the requisite an appeal in the manner authorized by law.89
authority to file the same constitutes a jurisdictional
infirmity which cannot be cured by silence, waiver, As a rule, the denial of a motion to quash is an
acquiescence, or even by express consent. In the said interlocutory order and is not appealable; an appeal from
case, We lift the ruling in Villa v. Ibañez, et al.:84 an interlocutory order is not allowed under Section 1(c),
Rule 41 of the Rules of Court.90 Neither can it be a proper
x x x Now, the objection to the respondent's actuations subject of a petition for certiorari which can be used only in
goes to the very foundation of the jurisdiction. It is avalid the absence of an appeal or any other adequate, plain and
information signed by a competent officer which, among speedy remedy. The plain and speedy remedy upon
other requisites, confers jurisdiction on the court over the denial of an interlocutory order is to proceed to trial as
person of the accused and the subject matter of the discussed above.91
accusation. In consonance with this view, an infirmity in
the information cannot be cured by silence, acquiescence, Thus, a direct resort to a special civil action for certiorari is
or even by express consent.85 an exception rather than the general rule, and is a
recourse that must be firmly grounded on compelling
An Information, when required by law to be filed by a reasons.92
public prosecuting officer, cannot be filed by another. The
court does not acquire jurisdiction over the case because However, on a number of occasions, We have recognized
there is a defect in the Information.86 There is no point in that in certain situations, certiorari is considered an
proceeding under a defective Information that could never appropriate remedy to assail an interlocutory order,
be the basis of a valid conviction.87 specifically the denial of a motion to quash. We have
recognized the propriety of the following exceptions: (a)
As to the issue raised by Maximo and Panganiban which when the court issued the order without or in excess of
relates to the propriety of the chosen legal remedies jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion; (b) when the
availed of by Villapando in the lower courts to question the interlocutory order is patently erroneous and the remedy of
denial of his motion to quash, We find the same appeal would not afford adequate and expeditious relief;
untenable. (c) in the interest of a more enlightened and substantial
justice; (d) to promote public welfare and public policy; and
In the usual course of procedure, a denial of a motion to (e) when the cases have attracted nationwide attention,
quash filed by the accused results in the continuation of making it essential to proceed with dispatch in the
the trial and the determination of the guilt or innocence of consideration thereof.93
the accused. If a judgment of conviction is rendered and
the lower courts' decision of conviction is appealed, the In grave abuse of discretion cases, certiorari is appropriate
accused can then raise the denial of his motion to quash if the petitioner can establish that the lower court issued
the judgment or order without or in excess of jurisdiction or
with grave abuse of discretion, and the remedy of appeal Moreover, We recognize that the petition for certiorari filed
would not afford adequate and expeditious relief. The by Villapando before the RTC was an original action
petitioner carries the burden of showing that the attendant whose resulting decision is a final order that completely
facts and circumstances fall within any of the cited disposed of the petition. Section 2, Rule 41 of the Rules of
instances.94 Court,97 states that cases decided by the RTC in the
exercise of its original jurisdiction must be appealed to the
In the case at bar, We find that there was a compelling CA. Nonetheless, We have allowed exceptions for good
reason to justify a resort to a petition for certiorari against cause that could warrant the relaxation of the rule as in
the Order of the METC. Villapando was able to show that this case.98 As discussed above, the RTC gravely abuse
the factual circumstances of his case fall under any of the its discretion in dismissing the petition of Villapando
above exceptional circumstances. The METC committed thereby affirming the denial of his motion to quash before
grave abuse of discretion in denying the motion to quash the METC. We note that Villapando's liberty was already
filed by Villapando. We adopt the ruling of the CA on this in jeopardy with the continuation of the criminal
matter: proceedings against him such that a resort to a petition
for certiorari is recognized.
In this petition, petitioner insists that the RTC committed
grave abuse of discretion in dismissing his Petition for As a rule, certiorari lies when: (1) a tribunal, board, or
Certiorari despite the lack of authority to file the officer exercises judicial or quasi-judicial functions; (2) the
information from the City Prosecutor, on the basis of the tribunal, board, or officer has acted without or in excess of
principle of "presumption of regularity". Verily, the issue its or his jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion
raised in this Petition goes into the very authority of the amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction; and (3) there is
court over the case. This is because a finding of the lack no appeal, or any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in
of authority for the assistant prosecutor in approving the the ordinary course of law.99
probable cause resolution necessarily invalidates the
information, and thereby ousts the court of jurisdiction to The writ of certiorari serves to keep an inferior court within
try and decide the case.95 As will be discussed later, the bounds of its jurisdiction or to prevent it from
petitioner was able to establish the merit of his contention. committing such a grave abuse of discretion amounting to
excess or lack of jurisdiction, or to relieve parties from
Likewise, We cannot ignore the fact, as admitted by the arbitrary acts of courts which courts have no power or
private respondents, that this case stemmed from a authority in law to perform.100
complaint filed by Petitioner with the Makati City
Prosecution Office against private respondents, as Anent the issue on forum shopping, We held in the case
directors of ASB for violations of Secs. 17, 20 and 25 of of Flores v. Secretary Gonzales, et al.101 that there is no
PD No. 957 or the Subdivision and Condominium Buyer's forum shopping when a petition is filed with the CA while
Protective Decree. Petitioner since the inception of this another petition is pending with the DOJ Secretary, thus:
case, has been insistent that the criminal complaints filed
by private respondents were merely filed in retaliation of We wish to point out that, notwithstanding the pendency of
his earlier complaint. the Information before the MTCC, especially considering
the reversal by the Secretary of Justice of his May 31,
Thus, to deny petitioner the relief of a writ of certiorari and 2006 Resolution, a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of
force him to go to trial would be self-defeating. To require the Rules of Court, anchored on the alleged grave abuse
Petitioner to go to the prescribed route of undergoing trial of discretion amounting to excess or lack of jurisdiction on
and filing an appeal thereafter, will undoubtly expose him the part of Secretary of Justice, was an available remedy
to the injuries which he seeks to promptly avoid by filing to Flores as an aggrieved party.
the instant Petition.96
In the petition for certiorari, the Court of Appeals is not
As correctly held by the CA, the METC committed an error being asked to cause the dismissal of the case in the trial
of jurisdiction, not simply an error of judgment, in denying court, but only to resolve the issue of whether the
Villapando's motion to quash the Information as will be Secretary of Justice acted with grave abuse of discretion
shown in the succeeding discussion. in either affirming or reversing the finding of probable
cause against the accused. But still the rule stands the same or substantially the same reliefs on the supposition
decision whether to dismiss the case or not rests on the that one or the other court would make a favorable
sound discretion of the trial court where the Information disposition or increase a party's chances of obtaining a
was filed. As jurisdiction was already acquired by the favorable decision or action.103
MTCC, this jurisdiction is not lost despite a resolution by
the Secretary of Justice to withdraw the information or to Maximo and Panganiban additionally raised the issue that
dismiss the case, notwithstanding the deferment or the People of the Philippines was not impleaded as a
suspension of the arraignment of the accused and further respondent in the case nor was the Office of the Solicitor
proceedings, and not even if the Secretary of Justice is General furnished a copy of the petition.
affirmed by the higher courts.
Section 5,104 Rule 110 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure
Verily, it bears stressing that the trial court is not bound to states that all criminal actions are prosecuted under the
adopt the resolution of the Secretary of Justice, in spite of direction and control of the public prosecutor. The
being affirmed by the appellate courts, since it is prosecution of offenses is thus the concern of the
mandated to independently evaluate or assess the merits government prosecutors. The purpose in impleading the
of the case and it may either agree or disagree with the People of the Philippines as respondent in the RTC and in
recommendation of the Secretary of Justice. Reliance on the CA is to enable the public prosecutor or Solicitor
the resolution of the Secretary of Justice alone would be General, as the case may be, to comment on the
an abdication of the trial courts duty and jurisdiction to petitions.105 Evidently, in this case, the People was
determine a prima facie  case. Thus, the trial court may represented by the Makati City Prosecution Office before
make an independent assessment of the merits of the the RTC and by the Office of the Solicitor General before
case based on the affidavits and counter-affidavits, the CA and were duly furnished with copies of all the
documents, or evidence appended to the Information; the pleadings.
records of the public prosecutor which the court may order
the latter to produce before it; or any evidence already Lastly, We find in the negative the issue of whether the
adduced before the court by the accused at the time the non-filing by Villapando of a motion for reconsideration of
motion is filed by the public prosecutor. The trial court the RTC Decision is fatal to his petition
should make its assessment separately and independently for certiorari,106 While a motion for reconsideration is a
of the evaluation of the prosecution or of the Secretary of condition precedent to the filing of a petition for certiorari,
Justice.102 this Court has recognized exceptions to the requirement
and cannot unduly uphold technicalities at the expense of
The filing of an appeal with the DOJ as well as the filing of a just resolution of the case.107
the petition with the CA would not constitute forum
shopping for the reason that the finding of the DOJ would In addition, Section 6, Rule 1 of the Rules of Court
not be binding upon the courts. In other words, even if the provides that rules shall be liberally construed in order to
DOJ recommends dismissal of the criminal case against promote their objective of securing a just, speedy and
petitioner, such resolution would merely be advisory, and inexpensive disposition of every action and proceeding.
not binding upon the courts. The DOJ ruling on the petition Thus, in several cases, this Court has ruled against the
for review would not constitute as res judicata on the case dismissal of petitions or appeals based solely on
at bar, neither can it conflict with resolution of the court on technicalities. Technicalities may be set aside when the
the propriety of dismissing the case. strict and rigid application of the rules will frustrate rather
than promote justice.108
Forum shopping is the act of a party against whom an
adverse judgment has been rendered in one forum, of The foregoing considered, We deny the petition filed by
seeking another and possibly favorable opinion in another Maximo and Panganiban on the ground that, as found by
forum other than by appeal or the special civil action the CA, the records of the case is bereft of any showing
of certiorari. There can also be forum shopping when a that the City Prosecutor of Makati had authorized ACP
party institutes two or more suits in different courts, either Benjamin S. Vermug, Jr. to file the subject Amended
simultaneously or successively, in order to ask the courts Information. Thus, the instant defective Amended
to rule on the same and related causes and/or to grant the Information must be quashed. The CA did not err in finding
grave abuse of discretion on the part of the RTC in Sections 17, 20 and 25 of P.D. No. 957. Nonetheless,
affirming the denial of Villapando's motion to quash the Villapando insisted that he never alleged in his complaint
Amended Information. that Maximo and Panganiban were employees/officers of
ASB at the time of the execution of the contract to sell.
G.R. No. 214965 Instead, the two became officers only in 2010 as
evidenced by the Articles of Incorporation he attached to
We now turn to the petition filed by Villapando which his complaint. He further argued that the said issue is not
raised the following arguments:109 material to the charge for violation of P.D. No. 957, and
thus, no crime of perjury was committed.
I. Violations of Section 17, 20 and 25 of P.D. 957
are committed not upon the execution of the In the Comment110 of Maximo and Panganiban, they
Contract to Sell between the Developer and argued that Villapando misconstrued the concept of
Buyer, but thereafter. They continue to be continuing crimes. A continuing crime requires a series of
committed until full compliance of the acts which stems from a single criminal resolution. The
requirements and mandate of law.  alleged violations of Sections 17, 20 and 25 of P.D. No.
957 consist of omissions such that the non-compliance
II. Violations of Sections 17, 20 and 25 of P.D. 957 thereof cannot constitute a continuing crime. They stated
are continuing offenses.  that the issue as to whether the violations of Sections 17,
20 and 25 of P.D. No. 957 are continuing offenses is a
III. Violations of Section 17, 20 and 25 of P.D. 957 matter of defense which cannot be raised in a motion to
are continuing offenses, hence, the allegations of quash. They also stressed that the complaint of Villapando
the Information and amended Information against against the ASB had already prescribed as ruled by the
petitioner do not constitute the offense charged DOJ in its Resolution dated. December 12, 2014.111
(perjury).
In Reply112 to the Comment of Maximo and Panganiban,
IV. The CA should not have skirted but resolved the Villapando insisted that violation of Sections 17, 20 and 25
foregoing substantial legal issues. of P.D. No. 957 has not yet prescribed. He learned that
there was violation of Section 17 of P.D. No. 957 only
Villapando asserted in his petition that it was necessary for when he received the certification of the Makati City
the CA to have resolved the nature of the violation of Register of Deeds dated May 12, 2010 stating that the
Sections 17, 20 and 25 of P.D. No. 957 to determine contract to sell has not been registered with its office. He
whether he could be held liable for the crime of perjury. He also stated that the DOJ Resolution dated December 12,
stated that nothing in P.D. No. 957 would suggest that 2014 was brought before this Court on February 18, 2015
violation of its provisions is committed at the time of the via a petition for certiorari docketed as G.R. No. 216546
execution of the contract to sell between the developer entitled Francisco Z. Villapando, Jr. v. Hon Leila de
and the buyer. According to him, there can be no violation Lima.113
at the time of the execution of the contract because it
could not yet be determined if the developer will not In the Comment114 filed by the OSG, it contended that
comply with the law. Violations occur from the time the unless and until the City Prosecutor files a new information
developer fails to comply with the law, and continue to be for Perjury against Villapando, there would be no actual
committed until the developer shall have fully complied case to speak of and there would be no need for the court
with the law. to resolve the issue regarding the nature of the violation of
the provisions of P.D. No. 957.
Villapando argued in his petition that
assuming arguendo that Maximo and Panganiban were In the Reply115 to the Comment of the OSG, Villapando
not employees/officers of ASB at the time of the execution averred that it is proper for this Court that the legal issue
of the contract to sell between ASB and Enhanced, they be resolved to avoid a circuitous and vexatious litigation.
may still be held liable being undisputedly directors of ASB
at the time the complaint was filed against them, during Basically, the petition of Villapando imputes grave error on
which, there was alleged continued non-compliance with the part of the CA in not resolving the substantive issue as
to whether violations of Sections 17, 20 and 25 of P.D. No. As a final note, We need to state that had the prosecutor
957 are continuing offenses. and the MeTC presiding judge been aware of the pertinent
provisions of the Rules of Court on the matter, the defect
The argument need not detain Us. This Court's power of in the Information could have been cured before the
review may be awesome, but it is limited to actual cases arraignment of the accused by a simple motion of the
and controversies dealing with parties having adversely public prosecution to amend the Information; the
legal claims, to be exercised after full opportunity of amendment at this stage of the proceedings being a
argument by the parties, and limited further to the matter of right on the part of the prosecution, or for the
constitutional question raised or the very lis court to direct the amendment thereof to show the
mota presented.116 signature or approval of the City Prosecutor in filing the
Information. Section 4, Rule 117 of the Rules of Court
An actual case or controversy involves a conflict of legal mandates that if the motion to quash is based on the
right, an opposite legal claim susceptible of judicial alleged defect of the complaint or information which can
resolution. It is definite and concrete, touching the legal be cured by amendment, the court shall order that an
relations of parties having adverse legal interest; a real amendment be made. Had either of these two been done,
and substantial controversy admitting of specific relief.117 this case should have not unnecessarily reached this
Court.
We agree with the argument proffered by the OSG that
unless and until the City Prosecutor files a new information WHEREFORE, the Decision dated June 13, 2014, and
for perjury against Villapando, there would be no actual Resolution dated October 16, 2014 of the Court of
case to speak of and there would be no need for the court Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 131085 are
to resolve the issue regarding the nature of the violation of hereby AFFIRMED.
the provisions of P.D. No. 957. The resolution on whether
Sections 17, 20 and 25 of P.D. No. 957 are continuing SO ORDERED.
offenses would necessarily pre-empt the outcome of the
trial before the proper court should an information be re-
filed by the City Prosecutor.

Quite notable is the statement of Villapando in his Reply

that he filed a petition for certiorari before this Court
docketed as G.R. No. 216546 questioning the ruling of the
DOJ Secretary in sustaining the denial of his complaint for
violations of Sections 17, 20 and 25 of P.D. No. 957.
Apparently, the arguments he raised in G.R. No. 216546
as to the nature of the violations of Sections 17, 20 and 25
of P.D. No. 957 are the same arguments he is raising in
the instant petition.

Based on the foregoing, We deny the petition filed by

Villapando and imputes no grave error on the part of the
CA in not resolving the substantive issue as to whether
violations of Sections 17, 20 and 25 of P.D. No. 957 are
continuing offenses. We, therefore, uphold the ruling of the
CA that since the Amended Information was defective on
its face for having been filed by an unauthorized person,
there was no need to resolve whether Sections 17, 20 and
25 of P.D. No. 957 are continuing offenses without pre-
empting the trial court should an Information be filed by
the prosecution.