Department of Finance v. Enerio
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: Digno A. Enerio, employed by the Bureau of Customs (BOC) since 1990, was subjected to a lifestyle check by the Department of Finance-Revenue Integrity Protection Service (DOF-RIPS). This check involved examining his Statements of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth (SALNs) from various years, along with documents from other government agencies. The investigation revealed discrepancies, including alleged falsification of his Personal Data Sheet (PDS) by failing to disclose a prior administrative charge, failure to file SALNs for 2005 and 2009, and omissions in declaring business interests and government loans in several SALNs. Consequently, DOF-RIPS filed a joint complaint-affidavit with the Ombudsman, alleging violations of Republic Act No. 6713 (Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees) and Republic Act No. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act). 2. Procedural History: The Office of the Ombudsman, after reviewing the complaint and respondent's failure to submit a counter-affidavit, issued a Resolution on June 29, 2017. This resolution found probable cause to charge Enerio with Falsification but dismissed the charges related to violations of Section 8 of RA 6713 and Section 7 of RA 3019, citing prescription and lack of sufficient evidence for concealment. The DOF-RIPS filed a motion for partial reconsideration, which was denied by the Ombudsman in an Order dated January 12, 2018. Aggrieved by these rulings, the DOF-RIPS filed the instant Petition for Certiorari with the Supreme Court, arguing that the Ombudsman committed grave abuse of discretion. 3. The Petition: The petitioner, DOF-RIPS, seeks to annul the Ombudsman's Resolution and Order through a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. The core of the petition is the assertion that the Ombudsman gravely abused its discretion by finding a lack of probable cause against respondent Digno A. Enerio for violations of Section 8 of RA 6713 and Section 7 of RA 3019. DOF-RIPS contends that the prescriptive periods for these offenses should be reckoned from the date of discovery, not commission, as per Act No. 3326, and that intent is irrelevant for mala prohibita offenses. They argue that the evidence presented was sufficient to establish probable cause for the alleged non-filing and non-disclosure of SALNs and GSIS loans, and that the Ombudsman erred in dismissing these charges.
Issue(s)
Whether the Ombudsman acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in finding lack of probable cause to charge respondent for violations of Section 8 of RA 6713 and Section 7 of RA 3019 regarding the 1997 and 2005 SALNs, and whether the offenses related to those SALNs had prescribed. Whether the Ombudsman acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in finding lack of probable cause to charge respondent for violations of Section 8 of RA 6713 and Section 7 of RA 3019 regarding the failure to disclose GSIS loans.
Ruling
The Supreme Court dismissed the Petition for Certiorari for lack of merit and affirmed the Resolution dated June 29, 2017, and the Order dated January 12, 2018, of the Office of the Ombudsman.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of grave abuse of discretion in finding lack of probable cause for violations of RA 6713 and RA 3019 regarding the 1997 and 2005 SALNs, and the issue of prescription of offenses: The Court held that the Ombudsman did not commit grave abuse of discretion. The petition for certiorari is a remedy for correcting errors of jurisdiction, not errors of judgment. The Ombudsman possesses wide latitude in its investigatory and prosecutory powers. For certiorari to issue, the petitioner must show that the Ombudsman acted arbitrarily or despotically. The Court found that the DOF-RIPS failed to demonstrate such grave abuse of discretion. The Court affirmed the Ombudsman's ruling that the offenses related to the 1997 and 2005 SALNs had prescribed. The prescriptive period for violations of RA 6713 is governed by Act No. 3326, as amended. Section 1 of Act No. 3326 provides for an eight-year prescriptive period for offenses punishable by imprisonment of two years or more but less than six years. Section 2 states that prescription begins to run from the day of the commission of the violation or from discovery thereof. The Court reiterated that for SALN violations, the reckoning point is the date of filing or non-filing, as agencies like the Ombudsman and Civil Service Commission have reasonable means to discover these violations. Given that 10 years had passed since the 2005 SALN submission and 18 years since the 1997 SALN submission when the complaint was filed, the offenses had indeed prescribed. On the issue of grave abuse of discretion in finding lack of probable cause for violations of Section 8 of RA 6713 and Section 7 of RA 3019 regarding the failure to disclose GSIS loans: The Court upheld the Ombudsman's finding of no probable cause for the failure to disclose GSIS loans. While RA 6713 and RA 3019 require complete and truthful SALNs to prevent unexplained wealth, the Ombudsman correctly noted that the non-declaration of GSIS loans did not necessarily amount to concealment. These loans were contracted from a government institution (GSIS), and there was no allegation or evidence that they were omitted to defraud the government or conceal unexplained wealth. The Court emphasized that what the law seeks to curtail is the acquisition of unexplained wealth. Where the source of undisclosed wealth can be properly accounted for, it is considered explained wealth, which the law does not penalize. The nature of GSIS loans as official records accessible to the public further supported the conclusion that their non-disclosure was not tantamount to the concealment contemplated by law.
Main Doctrine
The Supreme Court affirmed the Ombudsman's finding of lack of probable cause, holding that the offenses of failing to file or disclose information in SALNs had prescribed, and that the non-disclosure of GSIS loans did not necessarily constitute concealment of unexplained wealth as the loans were from a government institution and there was no evidence of intent to defraud or conceal.