PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, REPRESENTED BY THE OFFICE OF THE CITY PROSECUTOR, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, ROXAS CITY, PETITIONER, VS. JESUS A. ARROJADO, RESPONDENT.

People versus Arrojado

The Case

This is a petition for review on certiorari brought by the People of the Philippines, represented by the Office of the City Prosecutor of Roxas City, against Jesus A. Arrojado. The prosecution asks the Supreme Court to set aside the decision and resolution of the Court of Appeals which affirmed the trial court's dismissal of a criminal information for murder. The case matters because it settles a question every prosecutor and defense counsel must know: is a criminal information a "pleading" within the meaning of the Mandatory Continuing Legal Education rule, such that the prosecutor's failure to state the number and date of issue of her MCLE Certificate of Compliance warrants dismissal of the case?

Procedural History

The Office of the City Prosecutor of Roxas City charged the respondent with murder in an information dated March 23, 2009. The case was raffled to the Regional Trial Court of Roxas City. The respondent moved to dismiss on the ground that the investigating prosecutor failed to indicate in the information the number and date of issue of her MCLE Certificate of Compliance, as required by Bar Matter Number 1922. The prosecution opposed, arguing that the information was sufficient in form and substance and that an administrative edict cannot impose additional requirements on the sufficiency of a criminal information.

The trial court granted the motion and dismissed the information without prejudice. The prosecution's motion for reconsideration was denied. The prosecution then filed a petition for certiorari and mandamus with the Court of Appeals, which denied the petition and affirmed the trial court. Reconsideration was likewise denied. Hence, the present petition for review on certiorari before the Supreme Court, raising a sole assignment of error: that the Court of Appeals erred in ruling that the failure of the investigating prosecutor to indicate her MCLE compliance number and date of issuance in the information warranted its dismissal.

Facts

On March 23, 2009, the Office of the City Prosecutor of Roxas City filed an information charging Jesus A. Arrojado with murder. The information was subscribed by the investigating prosecutor, but it did not state the number and date of issue of her MCLE Certificate of Compliance.

On June 16, 2009, the respondent filed a motion to dismiss, invoking Bar Matter Number 1922, which took effect on January 1, 2009 and required practicing members of the bar to indicate in all pleadings filed before courts or quasi-judicial bodies the number and date of issue of their MCLE Certificate of Compliance or Certificate of Exemption.

The prosecution opposed the motion, contending that the information was sufficient in form and substance and that the lack of proof of MCLE compliance should not prejudice the interest of the State. The trial court nevertheless dismissed the information without prejudice, and denied reconsideration. The prosecution elevated the matter to the Court of Appeals, which affirmed. The prosecution then came to the Supreme Court.

Issues

• Whether or not a criminal information is a "pleading" within the meaning of Bar Matter Number 1922, such that the prosecutor must indicate therein the number and date of issue of her MCLE Certificate of Compliance.
• Whether or not the failure of the investigating prosecutor to indicate the number and date of issue of her MCLE Certificate of Compliance in the information is a mere formal defect that does not warrant dismissal.
• Whether or not the trial court committed grave abuse of discretion, correctible by certiorari, in dismissing the information on that ground.

Applicable Provisions

Bar Matter Number 1922, as it stood when the information was filed, provides:

The Court further Resolved, upon the recommendation of the Committee on Legal Education and Bar Matters, to REQUIRE practicing members of the bar to INDICATE in all pleadings filed before the courts or quasi-judicial bodies, the number and date of issue of their MCLE Certificate of Compliance or Certificate of Exemption, as may be applicable, for the immediately preceding compliance period. Failure to disclose the required information would cause the dismissal of the case and the expunction of the pleadings from the records.

This is the rule whose scope and whose sanction the case turns on.

Section 1, Rule 6 of the Rules of Court defines pleadings:

Pleadings are the written statements of the respective claims and defenses of the parties submitted to the court for appropriate judgment.

The Court uses this definition to bring the information within the term "pleadings."

Section 4, Rule 110 of the Rules of Court defines an information:

An information is an accusation in writing charging a person with an offense, subscribed by the prosecutor and filed with the court.

The Court compares this with the definition of pleadings to conclude that an information is a pleading.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that an information is a pleading. Applying the definition in Section 1, Rule 6, the Court reasoned that the allegations in an information charging a person with an offense are basically the same as a complaint in a civil action alleging a plaintiff's cause of action. It quoted with approval the Court of Appeals, which held that an information is an initiatory pleading because it is a written statement containing the cause of action of a party, which in criminal cases is the State as represented by the prosecutor, against the accused, and like a pleading it is filed in court for appropriate judgment. The Court also noted that under the United States Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, upon which our rules were patterned, the pleadings in a criminal proceeding are the indictment, the information, and the pleas.

On the second issue, the Court held that the failure to indicate the required information is not a mere formal defect that may be ignored. Bar Matter Number 1922 categorically provides that failure to disclose the required information would cause the dismissal of the case and the expunction of the pleadings from the records. The Court added that the prosecution never made any reasonable attempt at compliance, since even its motion for reconsideration did not supply the missing number and date of issue, so the plea for liberal construction appeared to be an afterthought.

On the third issue, the Court held that the trial court did not commit grave abuse of discretion. Since the dismissal rested on a clear and categorical provision of a rule issued by the Court, the trial court could not have acted capriciously or whimsically. The Court also rejected the argument that dismissal left the prosecution without remedy, because the dismissal was without prejudice and the prosecution could simply have re-filed the information with the required number and date of issue.

The Court observed, however, that it had since amended Bar Matter Number 1922 by an En Banc Resolution dated January 14, 2014, repealing the dismissal-and-expunction clause and replacing it with a provision subjecting the counsel to appropriate penalty and disciplinary action. The Court noted that while the amendment was not yet in effect when the information was filed, the more prudent course would have been to simply require the prosecutor to supply the missing information rather than dismiss the case.

Doctrine

A criminal information is a pleading within the meaning of Bar Matter Number 1922, because it is a written statement of the State's cause of action against the accused, filed in court for appropriate judgment, just as a complaint is in a civil action. Under the original text of Bar Matter Number 1922, the failure of counsel to indicate in a pleading the number and date of issue of the MCLE Certificate of Compliance caused the dismissal of the case and the expunction of the pleading from the records. That sanction was clear and categorical, so a trial court that dismissed an information for non-compliance did not act with grave abuse of discretion. The dismissal being without prejudice, the prosecution's remedy was to re-file the information with the required details, not to insist on its position through successive petitions. Following the January 2014 amendment, the sanction is no longer dismissal but appropriate penalty and disciplinary action against the counsel.

Disposition

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the decision and resolution of the Court of Appeals; the prosecution lost, and the dismissal of the information without prejudice stood.

Remember This

Memorize the line: an information is a pleading, and under the original Bar Matter Number 1922 the failure to state the MCLE compliance number and date of issue caused dismissal and expunction, now replaced by penalty and disciplinary action. Examiners use this case to test the definition of pleadings under Rule 6, the nature of an information under Rule 110, and the effect of the 2014 amendment to the MCLE rule.