wSUBJECT: TOPIC: Digest Maker:
Criminal Law Prescription of the crime Sean Ajihil Graft and Corruption informations may be filed preliminary investigation
Practices Act; That the by the Ombudsman should on the alleged offenses of
Ombudsman cannot revive it find probable cause. That the petitioner; that
Romualdez v. Marcelo the aforementioned cases filing the complaint with considering that both R.A.
which were previously the PCGG in 1987 and filing 3019 and Act. 3326 or the
[Supreme Court]|[GR Nos. 165510-33]|[July 28, 2006]|[Ynares-Santiago, J.] dismissed by the the information with the Act to Establish Periods of
Sandiganbayan. Thus, this Sandiganbayan in 1989 Prescription For Violations
Nature of Case: Criminal
Court may accordingly interrupted the Penalised By Special Acts and
SUMMARY: The applicable 10-and-15 –year prescriptive periods were not interrupted by dismiss Criminal Cases prescriptive period; that Municipal Ordinances and to
any event from the time they began to run on May 8, 1987. As a consequence, the alleged Nos. 28031-28049 pending the absence of the petitioner Provide When Prescriptions
offenses committed by the petitioner for the years 1963-1982 prescribed for 10 years from before the Sandiganbayan from the Philippines from Shall Begin To Run, are
May 8, 1987 or on May 8, 1997. On the other hand, the alleged offenses committed by the and Criminal Case Nos. 04- 1986 until 2000 also silent as to whether
petitioner for the years 1983-1935 prescribed for 15 years from May 8, 1987 or on May 8, 231857-04-231860 pending interrupted the aforesaid prescription should begin
2002. before the RTC-Manila, all period based on Article 91 to run when the offender is
on the grounds of of the RPC absent in the Philippines,
Therefore, when the Office of the Special Prosecutor initiated the preliminary prescription. the RPC, which answers
investigation of Criminial Cases Nos. 13406-13429 on March 3, 2004 by requiring the the same in the negative,
petitioner to submit his counter-affidavit, the alleged offenses subject therein have should be applied.
already prescribed, thus, the state can no longer prosecute.
RELEVANT PROVISIONS/DOCTRINES: Section 2 of Act No. 3326 , which provides:
ISSUE/S:
SEC. 2. Prescription shall begin to run from the day of the commission of the violation of
the law, and if the same not be known at the time, from the discovery thereof and the 1. W/N the preliminary investigation conducted by the Ombudsman in Criminal
institution of judicial proceedings for its investigation and punishment. Cases No. 13406-13429 was a nullity; - NO
The prescription shall be interrupted when proceedings are instituted against the 2. W/N the offenses for which petitioner are being charged have already prescribed
guilty person, shall begin to run again if the proceedings are dismissed for reasons not -YES
constituting jeopardy,
HELD/RULE/RATIO:
FACTS:
1. NO-The Court ruled that in the assailed Decision that preliminary investigation
conducted by the Ombudsman in Criminal Case Nos. 13406-13429 is a valid
Benjamin “Kokoy” Ombudsman Simeon V. Philippine Commission on proceeding despite the previous dismissal thereof by the Sandiganbayan. The
Romaldez (Petitioner) Marcelo (Respondent) Good Government aforementioned dismissal was effected pursuant to the Court’s decision in
(Respondent) Romualdez v. Sandiganbayan where the Court upheld the petitioner’s Motion to
Quash and directed the dismissal of Criminal Case Nos. 13406-13429 because
informations were filed by unauthorized party, hence void.
Petitioner claims that the The Ombudsman argues PCGG avers that, in
Office of the Ombudsman that the dismissal of the accordance with the 1987 An order sustaining a motion to quash (Section 6, Rule 117 of the Rules of Court)
gravely abused its informations in Criminal constitution and R.A. 6770 on grounds other than extinction of criminal liability or double jeopardy does not
discretion in Case Nos. 13406-13429 or the Ombudsman Act of preclude the filing of another information for a crime constituting the same facts.
recommending the filing of does not mean that 1989, the Ombudsman need
24 informations against him petitioner was thereafter not to wait for a new The preliminary investigation conducted by the Ombudsman in the instant case
for violation of Section 7 exempt from criminal complaint with new docket was not a violation of petitioner’s right to be informed of the charges against him.
of R.A. 3019 or the Anti- prosecution; that new number for it to conduct a
SO ORDERED.
Rule 117 of the Rules of Court provides that the accused may, at any time before
he enters his plea, move to quash the complaint and information on the ground
that the criminal action or liability has been exthinguised , which ground includes
DISSENTING OPINION
the defense of prescription considering that Article 89 of the RPC enumerates
prescription as one of those grounds which totally extinguishes criminal liability. CARPIO, J.
Indeed, even if there is yet to be a trial on the merits of a criminal case, the
accused can very well invoke the defense of prescription. “To allow an accused to prevent his prosecution by simply leaving this jurisdiction
unjustifiably tilts the balance of criminal justice in favor of the accused to the detriment of
2. YES- In resolving the issue of prescription of the offense charged, the following the State’s ability to investigate and prosecute crimes. In this age of cheap and accessible
should be considered: 1. The period of prescription for the offense charged; 2. The global travel, this Court should not encourage individuals facing investigation or
time the period of prescription starts to run and 3. The time the prescriptive period prosecution for violation of special laws to leave Philippine jurisdiction to sit-out abroad
was interrupted. the prescriptive period. The majority opinion unfortunately chooses to lay the basis for
such anomalous practice.”
Petitioner is being charged with violations of Section 7 of R.A. 3019 for failing to
file his SALN for the period of 1967-1985 during his tenure as Ambassador
Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary and for the period of 1963-1966 during his
tenure as Technical Assistant in the DFA. The Court rules that the prescriptive
period of the offenses herein began to run from the discovery thereof or on May
9, 1987, which was the date of the complaint filed by former Solicitor General
Francisco Chavez against the petitioner with the PCGG.
The applicable 10-and-15 –year prescriptive periods were not interrupted by any
event from the time they began to run on May 8, 1987. As a consequence, the
alleged offenses committed by the petitioner for the years 1963-1982 prescribed for
10 years from May 8, 1987 or on May 8, 1997. On the other hand, the alleged
offenses committed by the petitioner for the years 1983-1935 prescribed for 15 years
from May 8, 1987 or on May 8, 2002.
Therefore, when the Office of the Special Prosecutor initiated the preliminary
investigation of Criminial Cases Nos. 13406-13429 on March 3, 2004 by requiring
the petitioner to submit his counter-affidavit, the alleged offenses subject therein
have already prescribed, thus, the state can no longer prosecute.
DISPOSITIVE PORTION/DECISION:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration is GRANTED.
Criminal Cases Nos. 28031-28049 pending before the Sandiganbayan and Criminal Case Nos.
04-231857-04-231860 pending before the Regional Trial Court of Manila are all hereby
ordered DISMISSED.
