Romualdez v. Marcelo
REVERSALFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Benjamin ("Kokoy") T. Romualdez filed a Motion for Reconsideration assailing the Supreme Court's Decision which dismissed his petition and affirmed the resolutions of the Office of the Special Prosecutor. The Ombudsman recommended the filing of 24 informations against petitioner for violation of Section 7 of Republic Act (RA) No. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act). Petitioner argued that the Ombudsman gravely abused its discretion, that the Ombudsman could not revive cases previously dismissed by the Sandiganbayan, and that the defense of prescription could be raised even for the first time on appeal. Procedural History: The Office of the Ombudsman recommended the filing of informations. The Sandiganbayan had previously dismissed Criminal Case Nos. 13406-13429. The Supreme Court, in a prior ruling (Romualdez v. Sandiganbayan), had annulled and set aside orders denying the accused's motion to quash and ruled that the informations were filed by an unauthorized party, thus void and considered dismissed. The Supreme Court's prior decision directed the holding of a preliminary investigation. The Petition: Petitioner sought reconsideration of the Supreme Court's decision, primarily arguing that the preliminary investigation conducted by the Ombudsman was a nullity and that the offenses charged had already prescribed.
Issue(s)
Whether the preliminary investigation conducted by the Ombudsman in Criminal Case Nos. 13406-13429 was a nullity. Whether the offenses for which petitioner is being charged have already prescribed.
Ruling
The Motion for Reconsideration is GRANTED. Criminal Case 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 ordered DISMISSED.
Ratio Decidendi
On the validity of the preliminary investigation: The Supreme Court reiterated its ruling that the preliminary investigation conducted by the Ombudsman was valid. The previous dismissal of Criminal Case Nos. 13406-13429 by the Sandiganbayan was based on the fact that the informations were filed by an unauthorized party, rendering them void. However, Section 6, Rule 117 of the Rules of Court provides that an order sustaining a motion to quash is not a bar to another prosecution for the same offense unless the motion was based on grounds that extinguish criminal liability or constitute double jeopardy. Since the dismissal was due to a void information, it did not preclude the filing of new informations after a proper preliminary investigation. The Court also clarified that the assignment of docket numbers, even if they were the same as previously dismissed cases, was merely for internal record-keeping and did not invalidate the subsequent proceedings. The Ombudsman's investigation was conducted pursuant to the Supreme Court's directive to afford the petitioner his right to due process. On the prescription of offenses: The Supreme Court reconsidered its stance and ruled that it could validly take cognizance of the issue of prescription. It held that the defense of prescription can be invoked at any time before entry of plea, as it is a ground that extinguishes criminal liability under Article 89 of the Revised Penal Code. The Court then analyzed the prescriptive periods for violations of Section 7 of RA No. 3019. It noted that prior to the amendment by BP Blg. 195, the prescriptive period was 10 years, and after the amendment, it became 15 years. The Court determined that for offenses committed from 1962 up to March 15, 1982, the prescriptive period was 10 years, and for offenses from March 16, 1982, to 1985, it was 15 years. The prescriptive period began to run from the discovery of the offense, which was May 8, 1987, the date of the complaint filed with the PCGG. Crucially, the Court held that the absence of the petitioner from the Philippines from 1986 to 2000 did not interrupt the prescriptive period. This is because Act No. 3326, which governs prescription for violations of special laws, is silent on this matter and does not allow for the suppletory application of Article 91 of the Revised Penal Code, which explicitly provides for such interruption. The Court emphasized that legislative gaps cannot be filled by judicial fiat and that special laws prevail over general ones. Furthermore, the Court found that the proceedings initiated by the PCGG in 1987 and the filing of informations with the Sandiganbayan in 1989 were void for lack of jurisdiction, and therefore, did not interrupt the running of the prescriptive periods. Consequently, the offenses charged had already prescribed by the time the Ombudsman initiated the preliminary investigation in 2004.
Main Doctrine
The filing of an information by an unauthorized party renders the information void and cannot be the basis for criminal proceedings. However, an order sustaining a motion to quash on grounds other than extinction of criminal liability or double jeopardy does not preclude the filing of another information for a crime constituting the same facts. Furthermore, the absence of an accused from the Philippines does not toll the prescriptive period for offenses punishable under special laws unless expressly provided by such law, as Act No. 3326, which governs prescription for violations of special laws, is silent on this matter and does not allow for suppletory application of Article 91 of the Revised Penal Code in this regard.