Del Rosario v. People
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Melita O. Del Rosario, the Chief of the Valuation and Classification Division at the Bureau of Customs (BOC), was charged with two counts of violating Section 8 of Republic Act No. 6713 (Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees). The charges stemmed from her alleged failure to file her detailed sworn Statement of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth (SALN) for the calendar years 1990 and 1991. Under the law, these statements were required to be filed on or before April 30, 1991, and April 30, 1992, respectively. It was only on October 28, 2004, that the General Investigation Bureau-A of the Office of the Ombudsman initiated a complaint against her for these omissions. Procedural History: On March 11, 2008, the Office of the Ombudsman filed the corresponding criminal informations in the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) of Manila. Del Rosario filed a Motion to Quash, arguing that the offenses had already prescribed under Act No. 3326. The MeTC granted the motion, and the Regional Trial Court (RTC) affirmed the quashal, ruling that the eight-year prescriptive period began from the date of the commission (the filing deadlines). However, the Sandiganbayan reversed the RTC, applying the 'discovery rule.' The Sandiganbayan reasoned that it would be difficult for the Ombudsman to know of such omissions on the date of filing and that reckoning prescription from the commission would defeat the purpose of Republic Act No. 6713. The Appeal: Del Rosario filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 before the Supreme Court. She contended that the Sandiganbayan erred in applying the discovery rule, asserting that the prescriptive period should be reckoned from the date of the commission of the offense. She argued that since SALNs are public records and the government has the machinery to monitor them, the State cannot claim it only discovered the non-filing in 2004, more than a decade after the deadlines had passed.
Issue(s)
Whether the eight-year prescriptive period for the non-filing of SALN under Republic Act No. 6713 should be reckoned from the date of the commission of the offense (the filing deadline) or from the date of discovery by the Office of the Ombudsman.
Ruling
The Supreme Court GRANTED the petition, REVERSED and SET ASIDE the decision of the Sandiganbayan, and AFFIRMED the decision of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) upholding the quashal of the informations.
Ratio Decidendi
On the Reckoning Point of Prescription: The Court ruled that the prescriptive period began to run from the day of the commission of the violation, not its discovery. Applying Section 2 of Act No. 3326, the Court emphasized that the general rule is that prescription runs from the date of commission, while the 'discovery rule' is a narrow exception. In this case, the deadlines for filing the 1990 and 1991 SALNs were April 30, 1991, and April 30, 1992, respectively. The Court noted that the Office of the Ombudsman and the Civil Service Commission (CSC) are the primary agencies tasked with monitoring compliance with Republic Act No. 6713. Furthermore, Section 8(C) of Republic Act No. 6713 expressly makes SALNs accessible to the public for inspection and copying. Because the information regarding the non-filing was readily available in public records and not suppressed or concealed, the State had no reason not to know of the omissions within the eight-year prescriptive period. The Court distinguished this from 'Behest Loans' cases where conspiracy and the conditions of Martial Law prevented the discovery of crimes. Consequently, the 2004 complaint was filed well beyond the eight-year limit, and the criminal actions were already barred by prescription.
Main Doctrine
The prescriptive period for violations of Republic Act No. 6713 (Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees) is governed by Act No. 3326, which provides for an eight-year period for offenses punishable by imprisonment of two years or more but less than six years. The general rule is that prescription runs from the date of the commission of the offense. The 'discovery rule' applies only if the violation is not known and information regarding the crime is suppressed or not readily available to the public. Since Statement of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth (SALN) are public documents and government agencies like the Office of the Ombudsman and the Civil Service Commission (CSC) are mandated to monitor compliance, the non-filing of a SALN is a fact readily discoverable by the State; consequently, the prescriptive period begins on the day following the deadline for filing.