Finance-Revenue Integrity Protection Service v. Casayuran
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: This case concerns allegations against Miriam R. Casayuran, a Clerk II and later Customs Operations Officer III at the Bureau of Customs, for violations of anti-graft laws, the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees, the Revised Penal Code, and Executive Order No. 6. The core of the complaint revolves around Casayuran's alleged failure to file her Statement of Assets, Liabilities, and Net Worth (SALN) for specific years, her failure to declare certain properties and vehicles in her SALNs, and the acquisition of wealth that appeared manifestly out of proportion to her lawful income. Specifically, the charges included violations of R.A. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act), R.A. 6713 (Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees), Articles 171 and 183 of the Revised Penal Code (falsification and perjury), and R.A. 1379 (forfeiture of unlawfully acquired property). Procedural History: The Department of Finance-Revenue Integrity Protection Service (DOF-RIPS) filed a complaint initiating criminal, administrative, and forfeiture charges against Casayuran. The Office of the Ombudsman (Ombudsman) subsequently dismissed these complaints in a Joint Resolution dated September 30, 2016, finding no probable cause or substantial evidence. The Ombudsman reasoned that the charges for non-filing of SALNs had prescribed, and that the evidence did not sufficiently establish that Casayuran owned the properties in question or that her acquisitions were disproportionate to her income. The DOF-RIPS filed a Motion for Reconsideration, which was denied by the Ombudsman in a Joint Order dated February 28, 2017. Aggrieved, the DOF-RIPS filed a Petition for Certiorari before the Supreme Court, assailing the Ombudsman's dismissal of the criminal and forfeiture charges. The Petition: The petitioner, DOF-RIPS, seeks a reversal of the Ombudsman's decision through a Petition for Certiorari. The DOF-RIPS argues that the prescriptive period for the non-filing of SALNs should be counted from the discovery of the violation, not from the date of commission, and that the dismissal of charges under R.A. 6713 should not automatically lead to the dismissal of charges under R.A. 3019. Furthermore, the DOF-RIPS contends that the Ombudsman failed to adequately address the charges related to falsification under Articles 171 and 183 of the Revised Penal Code and erred in dismissing the forfeiture case under R.A. 1379, arguing that Casayuran's acquired assets were indeed disproportionate to her lawful income. The petition specifically requests that the Ombudsman be ordered to file a petition for forfeiture under R.A. 1379.
Issue(s)
Whether the Ombudsman erred in dismissing the criminal charges for violation of Section 8 of R.A. 6713 and Section 7 of R.A. 3019 due to prescription. Whether the Ombudsman erred in dismissing the charges for violation of Articles 171 and 183 of the Revised Penal Code. Whether the Ombudsman erred in dismissing the forfeiture case under Section 2 of R.A. 1379.
Ruling
The Supreme Court partially granted the petition. It affirmed the Ombudsman's dismissal of the criminal charges for violation of Section 8 of R.A. 6713 (non-filing of SALN for 1995, 1997, 1998) and Articles 171 and 183 of the RPC. However, it modified the ruling on the forfeiture charge, ordering the Ombudsman to file a petition for forfeiture under Section 2 of R.A. 1379 before the proper court.
Ratio Decidendi
On Violation of Section 8 of R.A. 6713 and Section 7 of R.A. 3019: The Court affirmed the Ombudsman's ruling that the charges for non-filing of SALNs for 1995, 1997, and 1998 had prescribed. Citing Del Rosario v. People, the Court reiterated that the prescriptive period for violations of Section 8 of R.A. 6713 is eight years, pursuant to Section 1 of Act No. 3326. Furthermore, under Section 2 of Act No. 3326, prescription begins to run from the commission of the violation or, if unknown, from the discovery thereof. The Court held that SALNs are publicly accessible, making the violation discoverable. Since the complaint was filed on October 17, 2013, more than a decade after the violations, the action had indeed prescribed. The Court also noted that the dismissal of the R.A. 6713 charge did not automatically dismiss the R.A. 3019 charge, but the prescription applied to both. On Violation of Articles 171 and 183 of the RPC: The Court found no probable cause to charge Casayuran under these articles. For Article 171 (falsification), it requires the offender to take advantage of their official position. The Court found that Casayuran's failure to declare the Nissan Sentra in her SALNs did not constitute taking advantage of her position, as her role as Customs Operations Officer III did not involve the preparation or custody of her SALN. For Article 183 (perjury), the Court noted that while failure to disclose properties in a SALN is a violation of R.A. 6713, which carries a heavier penalty, Casayuran could not be prosecuted under Article 183 because R.A. 6713 provides a more severe penalty. Moreover, regarding the Bulacan property, the Court agreed with the Ombudsman that Casayuran was not obligated to declare it as the Deed of Conditional Sale was cancelled due to non-payment, and thus, title likely never transferred to her. On Section 2 of R.A. 1379 (Forfeiture Case): The Court disagreed with the Ombudsman and found that Casayuran's lawful income appeared insufficient to cover the cost of the assets she purchased, making the acquired property manifestly out of proportion to her salary and other lawful income. The Court pointed out that Casayuran's basic salary was often insufficient to cover the monthly installments for her properties, such as the Pasay condominium and the Toyota Revo. Despite receiving bonuses and allowances, these were not enough to cover her liabilities and installments, especially when considering other loans and obligations. The Court concluded that Casayuran failed to sufficiently explain how her lawful income could cover these expenses and obligations, thus warranting a petition for forfeiture under R.A. 1379.
Main Doctrine
The Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal of criminal charges for non-filing of SALN due to prescription, and for falsification and perjury, but modified the ruling on the forfeiture case, ordering the Ombudsman to file a petition for forfeiture under R.A. 1379.