People v. Lee
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Respondent Mateo A. Lee, Jr. was charged with Violation of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 7877, the Anti-Sexual Harassment Act of 1995. The Information alleged that from February 14, 2013, to March 20, 2014, or sometime prior or subsequent thereto, Lee, a public officer and Deputy Executive Director of the National Council on Disability Affairs, committed sexual harassment against Diane Jane M. Paguirigan, an Administrative Aide VI under his supervision. The acts included demanding sexual favors, sending flowers, food, and messages of endearment, continuing these acts despite protests, visiting her house and church, inquiring about her from family and friends, and following her home, which resulted in an intimidating, hostile, or offensive working environment. Procedural History: Lee filed a Motion for Judicial Determination of Probable Cause and Prescription Extinguishing Criminal Liability with Prayer for Outright Dismissal, which was denied by the Sandiganbayan. Lee then filed a Motion for Reconsideration, which was granted by the Sandiganbayan in a Resolution dated September 6, 2017, ordering the dismissal of the case on the ground of prescription. The People of the Philippines' Motion for Reconsideration was subsequently denied. The Petition: The People of the Philippines, through the Office of the Special Prosecutor (OSP) of the Office of the Ombudsman, filed a Petition for Review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, seeking to reverse the Sandiganbayan's resolutions and arguing that the Sandiganbayan erred in dismissing the case on the ground of prescription.
Issue(s)
Whether the Sandiganbayan erred in dismissing the case against respondent on the ground of prescription; and whether the filing of a complaint with the Office of the Ombudsman interrupts the prescriptive period for violations of special laws. Whether the procedural issues raised by the respondent regarding the petition's compliance with verification and certification against forum shopping warrant the dismissal of the petition.
Ruling
The Supreme Court granted the petition, reversed and set aside the Resolutions of the Sandiganbayan dated September 6, 2017, and October 6, 2017, and ordered the Sandiganbayan to proceed with the trial of respondent Mateo Acuin Lee, Jr.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of prescription of crime for violations of special laws: The Court reiterated that for felonies under the Revised Penal Code, prescription is governed by Articles 90 and 91. However, for violations penalized by special acts and municipal ordinances, Act 3326, as amended by Act 3763, applies. Section 2 of Act 3326 states that prescription begins to run from the commission of the violation or discovery thereof, and is interrupted by the institution of judicial proceedings for investigation and punishment. The Court clarified that the filing of a complaint with the prosecutor's office for preliminary investigation is sufficient to interrupt the prescriptive period, a doctrine settled in Panaguiton, Jr. v. Department of Justice and affirmed in People v. Pangilinan. The Sandiganbayan's reliance on Jadewell v. Judge Nelson Lidua, Sr. was deemed misplaced as that case involved a city ordinance, not a special law. In the present case, the offense charged is a violation of R.A. No. 7877, a special law with a prescriptive period of three years. The Affidavit-Complaint was filed with the Office of the Ombudsman on April 1, 2014, which effectively tolled the running of the prescriptive period. The Information was filed with the Sandiganbayan on March 21, 2017, which was well within the three-year prescriptive period. Therefore, the dismissal of the case by the Sandiganbayan on the ground of prescription was erroneous. On the procedural issues raised by the respondent: The Court noted that while the petition failed to clearly indicate the date of receipt of the assailed Resolution, the filing of the Motion for Reconsideration on September 18, 2017, was well within the period to file the same, assuming the resolution was received on the date of its issuance. The Court also addressed the guidelines on non-compliance with verification and certification against forum shopping, stating that defects in verification are generally curable, while defects in certification against forum shopping are not, unless substantial compliance or compelling reasons exist. In this case, the Court found a need to relax these requirements due to the substantive issue and the potential for a travesty of justice, emphasizing that procedural rules should not subvert the ends of justice.
Main Doctrine
The filing of a complaint with the Office of the Ombudsman for the purpose of preliminary investigation interrupts the running of the prescriptive period for violations of special laws, such as R.A. No. 7877.