FIRST DIVISION[ G.R. Nos. 170609-13, January 30, 2009 ]BERNIE G. MIAQUE, PETITIONER, VS. HON.

VIRGILIO M. PATAG, IN HISCAPACITY AS PRESIDING JUDGE OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF

Five Informations for libel were filed in the RTC of Iloilo City, Branch 26, against petitioner BernieG.
Miaque and three others.

[5]

In an order dated February 17, 2005, these Information were quashed for lack of jurisdiction over the
offenses charged. Specifically, said Information failed to allege either that private respondent (therein
private complainant) Vicente Aragona actually held office in Iloilo City at the time of the commission of
the offenses or that the alleged libelous remarks were printed or first published in Iloilo City. Assistant
Provincial Prosecutor JerryMarañon issued a resolution recommending the filing of Information for libel
against petitioner and his co-accused. Accordingly, five new Information for libel docketed as Criminal
Case Nos.05-61407 to 05-61411 were filed against petitioner and his co-accused in the RTC of Iloilo City,
Branch 33, presided by respondent Judge Virgilio M. Patag. The new Information were similarly worded
as those previously quashed but with these added allegations: (1) Aragona, Regional State Prosecutor VI
of the Department of Justice, held office at the Hall of Justice, Iloilo City or (2) the alleged libelous
remarks were written, printed and published in Iloilo City (on the pertinent dates thereof). Said
Information were likewise signed and filed by Assistant Provincial Prosecutor Marañon. In view of the
filing of the new Information, Miaque filed his motions not to issue warrants of arrest and, if already
issued, to recall them and remand the Information to the ProvincialProsecutor's Office for preliminary
investigation. In an order, respondent judge denied

Miaque’s

motions on the ground that he was beyond the court's jurisdiction as he was not under the custody of
the court. Miaque's motion for reconsideration was denied. Hence, this petition. Miaque challenges the
August 25, 2005 and September 19, 2005 orders of respondent judge for being contrary to law and for
having been issued with grave abuse of discretion. He contends that the Informations were filed without
the mandatory preliminary investigation. Moreover, the new Informations were filed by one who had no
authority to do so because these were filed by the Iloilo Provincial Prosecutor's Office and not the Iloilo
City Prosecutor's Office. Jurisdiction over the subject matter supposedly belonged to the latter. Miaque
likewise assails the refusal of respondent judge to recall the warrants of arrest issued against him. The
Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), representing the People of the Philippines, contends that the
quashed Informations were merely amended to include the allegations that Aragona actually held office
in Iloilo City at the time of the commission of the offenses or that the libelous remarks were printed and
first published in Iloilo City. A new preliminary investigation was therefore unnecessary. On the warrant
of arrest, the OSG alleges that the trial court acquired jurisdiction over petitioner in view of the filing of
his August 8, 2005 motions. The filing of the motions supposedly was tantamount to voluntarily
submitting to the jurisdiction of the court.
ISSUE:

Whether or not the SC may take cognizance of a petition for certiorari which has been filed
directly to it by the petitioner Miaque.

RULING:

Generally, a direct resort to the SC in a petition for certiorari is incorrect for it violates the hierarchy of
courts. A regard for judicial hierarchy most certainly indicates that petitions for the issuance of
extraordinary writs against first level courts should be filed in the RTC and those against the latter
should be filed in the Court of Appeals. This rule, however, may be relaxed when pure questions of law
are raised as in this case.SC granted the petition that the Information should be quashed. One of the
issues raised in the petition is the authority of the Iloilo Provincial Prosecutor's Office to file and sign the
new Information against petitioner. The offenses charged in each of the new Information were alleged
to have been committed in Iloilo City but said Information were filed by the Iloilo Provincial Prosecutor's
Office. Sections 9 and 11 of Presidential Decree No. 1275

provide: SEC. 9.

Offices of Provincial Fiscals and City Fiscals' Staffing. --

There shall be in each province and each sub province; one provincial fiscal and such number of
assistant provincial fiscals as may hereinafter be provided for. There shall be in each city one city fiscals
and such number of assistant city fiscals as may hereinafter be provided.

SEC. 11.

Provincial Fiscals and City Fiscals; Duties and Functions

. - The provincial fiscal or the city fiscal shall: Investigate and/or cause to be investigated all charges of
crimes, misdemeanors and violations of all penal laws and ordinances

within their respective jurisdictions

and have the necessary information or complaint prepared or made against the persons accused. xxx
(emphasis supplied)It is undisputed that the alleged acts of libel were committed in Iloilo City. Who then
had the authority to file and sign the new information against petitioner and his co-accused? The
Charter of the City of Iloilo provides:[The City Fiscal, now City Prosecutor] shall also have charge of the
prosecution of all crimes, misdemeanors and violations of city ordinances, in the Court of First Instance
(now RTC) and in the Municipal Trial Court of the city, and shall discharge all the duties in respect to
criminal prosecutions enjoined by law upon provincial fiscals. The city fiscal shall cause to be
investigated all charges of crimes, misdemeanors, and violations of ordinances, and have the necessary
information or complaints prepared against the persons accused. The authority to sign and file the new
Information is properly lodged with the Iloilo City Prosecutor's Office. The Iloilo Provincial Prosecutor's
Office was clearly bereft of authority to file the new Information against petitioner. An Information,
when required by law to be filed by a public prosecuting officer, cannot be filed by another. The court
does not acquire jurisdiction over the case because there is a defect in the Information.

In People v. Hon. GarfinIt is a valid information signed by a competent officer which, among other
requisites, confers jurisdiction on the court over the person of the accused and the subject matter
thereof. xxx