Digested by: Salman M.

Johayr

Del Rosario v. People

Parties: Melita Del Rosario (petitioner)

Office of the Ombudsman (respondent)

Facts:

On October 28, 2004, The Ombudsman brought a complaint charging Melita O. Del
Rosario withthe violation of Sec. 8 of R.A. No. 6713 for 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. The Ombudsman criminally charged the petitioner in the MeTC with 2
violations docketed as Criminal Case No. 444354 and444355

On November 19, 2008, the petitioner filed a Motion to Quash in Criminal Case No.
444354 and Criminal Case No. 444355 on the ground of prescription of the offenses. On
September 18, 2009, the MeTC granted the Motion to Quash. The State moved for the
reconsideration of the quashal of the informations, but the MeTC affirmed the quashal on April
23, 2010.

The State appealed to the RTC praying that the quashal be annulled and set aside. In its
decision dated October 6, 2010, the RTC upheld the assailed orders of the MeTC. Undeterred,
the State elevated the decision of the RTC to the Sandiganbayan, arguing that the RTC had
erred in ruling that the eight-year prescriptive period for violation of Section 8 of R.A. No. 6713
commenced to run on the day of the commission of the violations, not from the discovery of the
offenses.

It was ruled that the period of prescription began from the discovery of the violations;
that it would be dangerous to maintain otherwise inasmuch as the successful concealment of
the offenses during the prescriptive period would be the very means by which the offenders
would escape punishment; and that reckoning the prescriptive period from the date of the
commission of the offenses would defeat the purpose for which R.A. No. 6713 was enacted,
which was to temper or regulate "the harsh compelling realities of public service with its ever-
present temptation to heed the call of greed and avarice.
Issue:

Whether the period of prescription of the offenses charged against the petitioner start to
run on the date of their discovery instead of on the date of their commission

Ruling:

No. Section 8 of R.A. No. 6713 mandates the submission of the sworn SALNs by all
public officials and employees, stating therein all the assets, liabilities, net worth and financial
and business interests of their spouses, and of their unmarried children under 18 years of age
living in their households. Paragraph (A) of Section 8 sets three deadlines for the submission of
the sworn SALNs, specifically:(a) within 30 days from the assumption of office by the officials or
employees; (b) on or before April 30 of every year thereafter; and (c) within 30 days after the
separation from the service of the officials or employees.

R.A. No. 6713 does not expressly state the prescriptive period for the violation of its
requirement for the SALNs. Hence, Act No. 3326 – the law that governs the prescriptive periods
for offenses defined and punished under special laws that do not set their own prescriptive
periods – is controlling. Section 1 of Act No. 3326 provides:

Section 1. Violations penalized by special acts shall, unless otherwise provided in such
acts, prescribe in accordance with the following rules: (a) after a year for offenses
punished only by a fine or by imprisonment for not more than one month, or both; (b)
after four years for those punished by imprisonment for more than one month, but less
than two years; (c) after eight years for those punished by imprisonment for two years or
more, but less than six years; and (d) after twelve years for any other offense punished
by imprisonment for six years or more, except the crime of treason, which shall prescribe
after twenty years. Violations penalized by municipal ordinances shall prescribe after two
months.

The complaint charging the petitioner with the violations was filed only on October 28,
2004, or 13 years after the April 30, 1991 deadline for the submission of the SALN for 1990, and
12 years after the April 30, 1992 deadline for the submission of the SALN for 1991. With the
offenses charged against the petitioner having already prescribed after eight years in
accordance with Section 1 of Act No. 3326, the informations filed against the petitioner were
validly quashed.

The relevant legal provision on the reckoning of the period of prescription is Section 2 of Act No.
3326:

Section 2. Prescription of violation penalized by special law shall begin to run from the
day of the commission of the violation of the law, and if the violation be not known at the time
from the discovery thereof and the institution of judicial proceedings for its investigation and
punishment.
the following guidelines in the determination of the reckoning point for the period of prescription
of violations of RA 3019,

1. As a general rule, prescription begins to run from the date of the commission of the
offense.
 2. If the date of the commission of the violation is not known, it shall be counted form the
date of discovery thereof.
3. In determining whether it is the general rule or the exception that should apply in a
particular case, the availability or suppression of the information relative to the crime
should first be determined.

If the information, data, or records from which the crime is based could be plainly discovered
or were readily available to the public, as in the case of the petitioner herein, the general rule
should apply, and prescription should be held to run from the commission of the crime;
otherwise, the discovery rule is applied.

Secondly, when there are reasonable means to be aware of the commission of the offense,
the discovery rule should not be applied. To prosecute an offender for an offense not
prosecuted on account of the lapses on the part of the Government and the officials responsible
for the prosecution thereof or burdened with the duty of making sure that the laws are observed
would have the effect of condoning their indolence and inaction.

We fully concur with the observations of the RTC to the effect that the offenses charged
against the petitioner were not susceptible of concealment. 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.

Thirdly, the Sandiganbayan's opinion that it would be burdensome and highly impossible for
the CSC, the Office of the Ombudsman and any other concerned agency of the Government to
come up with a tracking system to ferret out the violators of R.A. No. 6713 on or about the time
of the filing of the SALNs is devoid of persuasion and merit.

The CSC and the Office of the Ombudsman both issued memorandum circulars in 1994 and
1995 to announce guidelines or procedures relative to the filing of the SALNs pursuant to R.A.
No. 6713. Ombudsman Memorandum Circular No. 95-13 (Guidelines/Procedures on the Filing
of Statements of Assets, Liabilities and Networth and Disclosures of Business Interests and
Financial Connections with the Office of the Ombudsman Required under Section 8, Republic
Act No. 6713) publicized that the Office of the Ombudsman would create a task force that would
maintain a computerized database of all public officials and employees required to file SALNs,
and that such task force would monitor full compliance: with the law. The circular further
provided that: "The administrative/personnel division shall likewise prepare a report indicating
therein the list of officials and employees who failed to submit their respective statements of
assets, liabilities and net worth and disclosures of business interests and financial connections."

Considering that the memorandum circulars took effect prior to the commission of the
violations by the petitioner, it would be unwarranted to hold that the Office of the Ombudsman
could not have known of her omissions on the due dates themselves of the filing of the SALNs.
What we need to stress is that the prescriptive period under Act No. 3326 was long enough for
the Office of the Ombudsman and the CSC to investigate and identify the public officials and
employees who did not observe the requirement for the submission or filing of the verified
SALNs – information that was readily available to the public.
 Hence, the Court reverses and sets aside  the decision rendered on August 16, 2011 by the
Sandiganbayan; and AFFIRMS the decision rendered on October 6, 2010 by the Regional Trial
Court