Republic of the Philippines
NATIONAL CAPITAL JUDICIAL REGION
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
Branch 74
Malabon City
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,
-versus- Criminal Case No. 37325-MN
For: Attempted Murder
ARILE SENCO Y GONZALES,
WILFREDO PINEDA Y TESORERO
Accused.
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
COMMENT/OPPOSITION TO THE
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION FILED
BY THE PROSECUTION
COMES NOW, the accused, assisted by the PUBLIC ATTORNEY’S
OFFICE, through the undersigned counsel, unto this Honorable Court, most
respectfully files the instant comment/opposition to the motion for reconsideration
filed by the prosecution and in support thereof avers and states that:
1. The Office of the City Prosecutor of Malabon City filed its Motion
for Reconsideration on the ruling/order of the Court dismissing
these cases on the ground of lack of authority on the part of the
filing prosecutor amounting to lack of jurisdiction. In support of its
motion, the Office of the City Prosecutor of Malabon argued that
the filing prosecutor had prior written authority and delegation from
the City Prosecutor to approve and cause the filing of the
information pursuant to the provisions of Rule 112, Section 4, of
the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure in correlation with the
provisions of P.D. 1275.
2. At the onset and as argued by this representation before the Court in
one of the hearing of the case wherein this representation orally
moved for the dismissal of a case on the ground of lack of
jurisdiction, that delegation may be done as a matter of practical
administrative procedure, to seek the aid of subordinates to
investigate and report the facts to the officer upon whom the law
vests the discretion, and on the bases of which the city prosecutor
makes his decision. This is in pursuant to the ruling of the Court in
Silva vs. Mationg (G.R. No. 160174, August 28, 2006). Thus the
delegation, if ever, could only be up to the extent of investigation,
fact finding and probably with appropriate recommendation.
However, the decision whether or not to file the information would
still rest with the city prosecutor upon whom the Rules vest the sole
authority to decide.
3. With these conflicting views and opinions, the question that begs to
be answered is whether or not the City Prosecutor can delegate to
its deputy prosecutor the approval and filing of information.
Corollary thereto, is there a law that allows such delegation? The
defense counsel humbly submits that the questions are to be
answered in the negative.
4. It is general principle of law, expressed in the maxim “delegates
non potest deligate” that a delegated power may not further be
delegated by the person to whom such power is delegated. Apart
from statute, whether administrative officers in whom certain
powers are vested or upon whom certain duties are imposed may
deputize others to exercise such powers or perform such duties
usually depends upon whether the particular act or duty sought to
be delegated is ministerial, on the one hand, or, on the other, may
be delegated to assistant whose employment is authorized, there is
no authority to delegate acts discretionary or quasi-judicial in
nature, unless, of course, authorized by the legislature. (Jose Agaton
Sibal, Administrative Law, 2nd Edition, page 102).
5. Is the approval and filing of information before the Court then a
ministerial function of the City Prosecutor? The Supreme Court in
the case of Crespo vs. Mogul (G.R. No. 53373, 30 June 1987)
answered in the negative. The Supreme Court in that case held
“that the prosecutor has the quasi-judicial discretion to determine
whether or not a criminal case should be filed in Court. It is in this
limited sense that the duty or power of the City Prosecutor to
approve the filing of information in court is considered
discretionary or quasi-judicial.”
6. Considering that the approval and filing of information before the
Court is a discretionary act of the City Prosecutor, is there a law
that authorizes its delegation? Section 32 of the Administrative
Code of 1987 provides that:
Section 32. Acting Head of Bureau or Office. _ In case of the
absence or disability of the head of a bureau or office, his
duties shall be performed by the assistant head. When there
are two or more assistant heads, the Secretary shall make the
designation. In the absence of an assistant head, the
Secretary may designate any officer or employee of the
bureau or office as acting head without additional
compensation.
The provisions of R.A. No. 10071 (Prosecution Service Act of
2010) likewise provides that when a city prosecutor inhibits himself
from a case, the Regional State Prosecutor shall designate a substitute.
7. These instances however should be subject to the general rule set
forth in Section 31 (1) of the Administrative Code of 1987 where it
provides that “assistant heads and other subordinates in every
bureau or office shall perform such duties as may be required by
law or regulations, or as may be specified by their superiors, not
otherwise inconsistent with law.” (Emphasis supplied.)
8. Thus where the city prosecutor abnegates his duty to review the
complaint and the evidence in support thereof for purposes of
determining probable cause to warrant the indictment of a
respondent in court and approve or authorize the filing of the
information, he would, in effect, be voluntarily inhibiting himself.
If that were the case, the city prosecutor is barred under R.A. No.
10071 to designate his subordinate. Thus, the blanket delegation of
the quasi-judicial or discretionary power to approve or authorize the
filing of information in court – not warranted by any rule or statue
anyway – would be antithetical to the law governing the inhibition
of a city prosecutor. It is therefore, void ab initio.
9. At any rate, the provision of Sec. 4 (3) of Rule 112, Revised Rules
of Criminal Procedure requiring the prior written authority or
approval of the city prosecutor before an information could be filed
in court does not contemplate of a blanket or pre-emptive
delegation. Otherwise, the rule would have been simply framed as
the prosecutor would like to impress upon this Court, in this wise:
“city prosecutor or his authorized representative.”
10.The requirement of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure which
impacts on the jurisdiction of the trial court should not be taken
lightly as it would defeat the purpose of the rule which was
designed to secure against hasty, malicious, and oppressive
prosecution, and to protect the State from useless and expensive
trial.
PRAYER
WHEREFORE, premises considered, respondent, unto this Honorable
Office, most respectfully prays that the instant comment/opposition be noted, made
part of the records of this case, after consideration, a resolution be issued denying
the motion for reconsideration filed by the prosecution and the dismissal of the
cases for lack of jurisdiction be affirmed and upheld.
Malabon City, Metro Manila, April 28, 2015
PUBLIC ATTORNEY’S OFFICE
MALABON CITY DISTRICT
Counsel for the Accused
No. 160 Gov. Pascual Avenue,
Tenajeros, Malabon City
By:
LEVI N. DYBONGCO-BAÑEZ
Public Attorney II
Copy Furnished:
HON. ROMEL C. BLANCO
Assistant City Prosecutor
Office of the City Prosecutor
Catmon, Malabon City
