Department of Finance v. Germar
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The Department of Finance - Revenue Integrity Protection Service (DOF-RIPS) conducted a lifestyle check on Clemente del Rosario Germar, a security guard at the Bureau of Customs, from April 1, 1979, to October 16, 2015. This check, comparing his Statements of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth (SALNs) from 2002 to 2014 with government agency documents, revealed that Germar failed to declare several properties under his name and one he donated to his daughter. Specifically, seven properties registered under his name and two under his daughter's name were discovered, while he declared only three properties without their valuations. Furthermore, despite a provisionally dismissed criminal information for robbery, he answered 'NO' to being formally charged in his 2014 Personal Data Sheet (PDS). Procedural History: The DOF filed a complaint against Germar with the Office of the Ombudsman (OMB) for violations of RA 3019, RA 6713, Article 171 (Falsification), and Article 183 (Perjury) of the Revised Penal Code (RPC). The OMB found probable cause for violations of Section 7 of RA 3019 and Section 8 of RA 6713 for failing to disclose properties in his SALNs from 2008 to 2014, and for perjury under Article 183 of the RPC concerning his 2006-2014 SALNs and 2014 PDS. However, charges for RA 6713 violations from 2002-2007 and Article 183 RPC violations from 2002-2005 were dismissed due to prescription, as was the charge for Falsification under Article 171 of the RPC for lack of probable cause. The OMB subsequently denied the petitioner's motion for partial reconsideration. The Petition: The petitioner filed a Petition for Certiorari before the Supreme Court, challenging the OMB's Resolution and Order. The core issues raised were whether the OMB committed grave abuse of discretion in ruling that there was no probable cause for Falsification, and whether the charges related to RA 6713 and Article 183 RPC violations had indeed prescribed.
Issue(s)
Whether the Ombudsman gravely abused its discretion in ruling that there is no probable cause to charge private respondent with Falsification under Article 171 (4) of the RPC for failure to disclose several of his properties in his SALN. Whether the Ombudsman gravely abused its discretion in ruling that the charges for violation of RA 6713 for the years 2002-2007 have prescribed. Whether the Ombudsman gravely abused its discretion in ruling that the charges for perjury under Article 183 of the RPC for the years 2002-2005 have prescribed.
Ruling
The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, affirming the Resolution and Order of the Office of the Ombudsman. The Court found no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the Ombudsman in dismissing the charges for falsification due to lack of probable cause, and the charges for perjury and violation of RA 6713 on the ground of prescription.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of Falsification under Article 171 (4) of the RPC: The Court agreed with the Ombudsman that the element of 'taking advantage of one's official position' was lacking. For falsification under Article 171, paragraph 4, the offender must make untruthful statements in a public document, have a legal obligation to disclose the truth, and the statements must be absolutely false. In this case, the private respondent, a security guard, did not have the duty to prepare or intervene in the preparation of SALNs as part of his official duties. The preparation and filing of a SALN is a general requirement for all public officers and employees, not specific to the duties of a security guard. Therefore, his failure to disclose properties in his SALN did not constitute taking advantage of his position as a customs security guard. Since not all elements of the crime were present, no grave abuse of discretion could be ascribed to the Ombudsman for dismissing the charge. On the issue of prescription for violations of RA 6713: The Court reiterated that violations of special laws like RA 6713 are governed by Act No. 3326, which provides an eight-year prescriptive period under Section 1(c). Section 2 of Act No. 3326 states that prescription begins to run from the day of the commission of the violation or from discovery thereof. However, in cases involving SALNs, the prescriptive period is reckoned from the date of filing of the SALN, as the SALNs are accessible to the public and agencies tasked with monitoring compliance. The Court cited previous rulings in Del Rosario v. People and DOF-RIPS v. Ombudsman and Casayuran, which held that the State is presumed to know of omissions within the eight-year period. Therefore, the OMB correctly dismissed the charges for RA 6713 violations from 2002-2007 as they had prescribed. On the issue of prescription for perjury under Article 183 of the RPC: The Court held that perjury under Article 183 of the RPC, which carries a correctional penalty, prescribes in ten (10) years, as provided by Article 90 of the RPC. The prescriptive period for crimes under the RPC is generally counted from the time of discovery pursuant to Article 91. However, for perjury in SALNs, the crime is deemed consummated upon filing, and discovery should be reckoned from the time of filing. This is because once filed, the SALN is subject to review by proper authorities. The Court also noted that Section 8(C)(4) of RA 6713 states that SALNs are available to the public for ten (10) years after receipt, implying that investigations should commence within this period. Since the lifestyle check began in 2015 and the complaint was filed in May 2016, more than ten years had passed since the filing of the 2002-2005 SALNs, thus barring prosecution for perjury for those years due to prescription.
Main Doctrine
The Supreme Court affirmed the Ombudsman's dismissal of charges for falsification and perjury on grounds of lack of probable cause and prescription, respectively. It clarified that the 'taking advantage of official position' element for falsification under Article 171 of the RPC is absent when a security guard fails to declare properties in his SALN, as SALN preparation is a general requirement for public employees, not tied to the specific duties of his post. The Court also reiterated that violations of RA 6713 prescribe in eight years from the filing of the SALN, and perjury under Article 183 of the RPC prescribes in ten years from the filing of the SALN, with the prescriptive period for both commencing from the date of commission (filing of the SALN).