Del Rosario vs. People (2018)

MELITA O. DEL ROSARIO vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

G.R. No. 199930, June 27, 2018

BERSAMIN, J.:

Facts: On October 28, 2004, the Office of the Ombudsman brought a complaint charging the petitioner with the violation of Section 8 of R.A. No. 6713; dishonesty; grave misconduct; and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service for her failure to file her SALNs for the years 1990 and 1991. On March 11, 2008, the Office of the Ombudsman criminally charged the petitioner for two violations of R.A. No. 6713. On November 19, 2008, the petitioner filed a Motion to Quash on the ground of prescription of the offenses. The MeTC granted the Motion to Quash.

However, the Sandiganbayan overturned the decision and ruled that the eight-year prescriptive period for violation of Section 8 of R.A. No. 6713 commenced to run from the discovery of the offenses.

Issue: Whether or not the eight-year prescriptive period for violation of Republic Act No. 6713 (Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees) should be reckoned from the filing of the detailed sworn statement of assets, liabilities and net worth (SALN), or from the discovery of the non-filing thereof.

Ruling: The Sandiganbayan erred in applying the discovery rule to the petitioner's cases.

As a general rule, prescription begins to run from the date of the commission of the offense especially if the necessary information based on which the crime could be discovered is readily available to the public. If the date of the commission of the violation is not known, it shall be counted form the date of discovery thereof.

In this case, the discovery rule does not apply for the State had no reason not to be presumed to know of petitioner’s omissions during the eight-year period of prescription set in Act No. 3326. As such, the offenses could have been known within the eight-year period starting from the moment of their commission. Indeed, the Office of the Ombudsman or the CSC, the two agencies of the Government invested with the primary responsibility of monitoring the compliance with R.A. No. 6713, should have known of her omissions during the period of prescription.

Ratio Decidendi: If the necessary information, data, or records based on which the crime could be discovered is readily available to the public, the general rule applies. Prescription shall, therefore, run from the date of the commission of the crime.

Gist: This case seeks the reversal of the decision of the Sandiganbayan setting aside the ruling of the RTC, upholding the orders issued by the MeTC granting her motion to quash the informations.