An information was filed charging A of illegal use of dangerous drugs. The information, however, failed to indicate the MCLE Compliance No. of B, the prosecutor who signed it. Mindful of such ommission, A filed a Motion to Dismiss the Information. B, on the other hand, filed its comment/opposition to the motion, alleging, among others, that lack of proof of MCLE compliance by the prosecutor who prepared and signed the Information should not prejudice the interest of the State in filing charges against persons who have violated the law. If you were the judge, would you grant or deny said motion? Explain.
If I were the judge, I would deny the motion. Under the SC En Banc Resolution, dated January 14, 2014 which amended Bar Matter No. 1922 by repealing the phrase “Failure to disclose the required information would cause the dismissal of the case and the expunction of the pleadings from the records” and replacing it with “Failure to disclose the required information would subject the counsel to appropriate penalty and disciplinary action”, the failure of a lawyer to indicate in his or her pleadings the number and date of issue of his or her MCLE Certificate of Compliance will no longer result in the dismissal of the case and expunction of the pleadings from the records. Nonetheless, such failure will subject the lawyer to the prescribed fine and/or disciplinary action. – People v. Arrojado