Department of Finance v. Ombudsman
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: This case concerns allegations of graft and corruption against Ramir Saunders Gomez, a Special Agent I at the Bureau of Customs. The Department of Finance-Revenue Integrity Protection Service (DOF-RIPS) accused Gomez of failing to file his Statement of Assets, Liabilities, and Net Worth (SALN) for the year 2003. Furthermore, Gomez was alleged to have failed to disclose several properties and a vehicle in his SALNs for various years between 1996 and 2013. He was also accused of filing two inconsistent SALNs in 2006, falsely declaring the acquisition cost of a vehicle and the nature of loans. Procedural History: The DOF-RIPS filed a complaint against Gomez on August 28, 2015, for violations of Republic Act (RA) No. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act), RA No. 6713 (Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees), and Articles 171(4) and 183 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC). Gomez denied the charges, attributing any errors or omissions to his bookkeeper and providing explanations for the alleged discrepancies. On June 23, 2017, the Office of the Ombudsman issued a Resolution finding probable cause and directing the filing of Informations for Perjury and Falsification. Both parties filed Motions for Reconsideration, which were denied by the Ombudsman in an Order dated October 20, 2017, affirming the previous Resolution. The Petition: The DOF-RIPS, represented by Joel M. Apolonio and Agapito C. Guarin, filed a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. The petition seeks to annul the Ombudsman's Resolution and Order, arguing that the Ombudsman committed grave abuse of discretion. Specifically, the DOF-RIPS contends that the Ombudsman erred in ruling that the offenses related to Gomez's non-filing of his 2003 SALN and his false declarations in other SALNs had prescribed. The DOF-RIPS argues for a longer prescriptive period for violations of RA No. 3019 and asserts that the discovery of the falsities should be reckoned from the date of receipt of compliances from government agencies, not from the date of filing the SALNs.
Issue(s)
Whether the Office of the Ombudsman committed grave abuse of discretion in ruling that the offense of non-filing of the 2003 SALN had prescribed. Whether the Office of the Ombudsman committed grave abuse of discretion in ruling that the offenses of willful and deliberate assertions of falsehoods in the SALNs for 1996, 2004, 2005, and 2006 had prescribed. Whether the prescriptive period for violations of RA No. 3019 and RA No. 6713 should be applied, and if so, how. Whether the prescriptive period for perjury and falsification should be reckoned from the date of commission or discovery.
Ruling
The Petition is denied. The Resolution dated June 23, 2017, and Order dated October 20, 2017, issued by the Office of the Ombudsman are affirmed.
Ratio Decidendi
On the prescription of the non-filing of the 2003 SALN: The Court affirmed the Ombudsman's ruling that the offense of non-filing of the 2003 SALN had prescribed. It was established that RA No. 6713, with its heavier penalties, amended Section 7 of RA No. 3019 concerning SALN violations. Therefore, Gomez could only be prosecuted under RA No. 6713. The prescriptive period for violations of Section 8 of RA No. 6713 is eight (8) years, as governed by Act No. 3326. Since the complaint was filed thirteen (13) years after the omission, it had clearly prescribed. The argument that the prescriptive period for RA No. 3019 (fifteen (15) years) should apply was rejected because RA No. 6713 explicitly modified RA No. 3019 where its penalties were not heavier. On the prescription of falsehoods in SALNs (Perjury and Falsification): The Court upheld the Ombudsman's finding that the offenses of perjury and falsification related to the SALNs for 1996, 2004, 2005, and 2006 had prescribed. The prescriptive period for perjury under Article 183 of the RPC is ten (10) years. Crucially, for SALN-related offenses, the prescriptive period is reckoned from the date of filing of the SALN, as the offense is deemed consummated upon filing and subject to review. The Court cited jurisprudence stating that ten (10) years is sufficient time to discover errors or inaccuracies in a SALN. Since the complaint was filed more than ten (10) years after the submission of these SALNs, the prosecution for these offenses was barred by prescription. The DOF-RIPS' argument that discovery should be reckoned from their receipt of compliances was rejected, as the SALNs themselves provide the basis for review upon filing. On the application of prescriptive periods: The Court clarified that RA No. 6713, being a special law, governs the prescriptive periods for SALN violations, and its provisions, particularly Section 8, are subject to Act No. 3326. The argument that BP Blg. 195, amending RA No. 3019, provided a fifteen (15)-year prescriptive period was deemed inapplicable because RA No. 6713 explicitly modified RA No. 3019. The Court reiterated that the prescriptive period for violations of Section 8 of RA No. 6713 is eight (8) years, as established in prior cases like People v. Del Rosario and DOF-RIPS v. Ombudsman and Casayuran. On reckoning the period of prescription: The Court affirmed the Ombudsman's determination that the prescriptive period for perjury and falsification should be reckoned from the date of commission (filing of the SALN), not from the date of discovery by the complainant. This is because the SALN is considered filed and subject to review upon submission, making any falsity discoverable within the prescriptive period. The Court also noted that Section 8(C)(4) of RA 6713, stating that statements are available for ten (10) years, implies that investigations should commence within this period, reinforcing the idea that the ten-year period for perjury is counted from filing.
Main Doctrine
The prescriptive period for violations of Section 8 of RA No. 6713 (non-filing of SALN) is eight (8) years, computed from the commission of the violation or discovery thereof, pursuant to Act No. 3326. For offenses of perjury and falsification related to SALNs, the prescriptive period is ten (10) years, reckoned from the date of filing of the SALN, as it is deemed consummated upon filing and subject to review.