Benjamin T. Romualdez v. Hon. Simeon V. Marcelo and PCGG (G.R. Nos. 165510-33, July 28, 2006)(CASE DIGEST)

Facts

Benjamin T. Romualdez (Petitioner) was charged in 24 separate criminal cases for violating Section 7 of Republic Act (RA) No. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act) for failing to file his Statements of Assets and Liabilities (SALs) during his tenure as a public official from 1963 to 1985.

The discovery of the alleged offenses was reckoned from May 8, 1987, when a complaint was filed with the Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG). Initial informations were filed with the Sandiganbayan in 1989, but these were later dismissed as void because the informations were filed by an unauthorized party (the PCGG), as judicially settled in a prior Supreme Court ruling (Romualdez v. Sandiganbayan).

New informations were filed against the petitioner by the Office of the Special Prosecutor following a subsequent preliminary investigation. The petitioner claimed that the offenses had already prescribed. The prosecution countered that the filing of the complaint in 1987 interrupted prescription and that the petitioner’s absence from the Philippines from 1986 until April 27, 2000, also interrupted the prescriptive period based on Article 91 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC).

Issues

1. Whether the preliminary investigation conducted by the Ombudsman on the same facts, after the previous informations were quashed due to an unauthorized filing, was a nullity.
2. Whether the offenses charged against the petitioner, violations of RA No. 3019, have already prescribed.

Ruling

“WHEREFORE, premises considered, petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration is GRANTED. Criminal Case Nos. 28031-28049 pending before the Sandiganbayan and Criminal Case Nos. 04-231857–04-231860 pending before the Regional Trial Court of Manila are all hereby ordered DISMISSED. SO ORDERED.”

Essential Elements of Jurisprudence

Controlling Doctrine (Prescription for Special Laws): The law on prescription for offenses punishable under special laws, such as R.A. No. 3019, is governed by Act No. 3326.

Legal Principles Established:

1. Effect of Nullified Proceedings on Prescription: Proceedings that are declared null and void, such as those initiated by an unauthorized body (PCGG) or based on an invalid information, do not constitute a “proceedings instituted against the guilty person” under Section 2 of Act No. 3326 and therefore do not interrupt the running of the prescriptive period. The only proceeding that interrupts prescription is one filed before the appropriate body or office.
2. Suppletory Application of RPC to Special Laws (Act 3326 vs. RPC Art. 91): Article 91 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC), which states that the term of prescription shall not run when the offender is absent from the Philippines, does not apply to offenses penalized under special laws governed by Act No. 3326.
3. Statutory Construction of Act No. 3326: Act No. 3326 is “conspicuously silent” regarding the absence of the offender as a ground for interruption. Applying the rule expressio unius est exclusio alterius (the expression of one thing excludes others), the silence of Act No. 3326 means the legislature did not intend the accused’s absence to toll the prescriptive period.
4. Liberal Interpretation of Prescription: Statutes of limitation in criminal cases are considered acts of amnesty and grace granted by the State, and must be liberally construed in favor of the defendant. Any cause for interruption of prescriptive periods must be directly and expressly sanctioned by law and cannot be implied.
5. Re-prosecution after Quashal: An order sustaining a motion to quash on the ground that the information was defective or filed by an unauthorized party (not on the ground of extinction of liability or double jeopardy) is not a bar to another prosecution for the same offense.

Sample Q&A

Question: A public officer is discovered in 1995 to have committed a violation of Section 7 of R.A. No. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act) in 1985 (prescriptive period: 15 years, per Section 11 of RA 3019, as amended by B.P. Blg. 195). A formal complaint was filed with the wrong body in 1996. The officer then fled the country and remained absent until 2012. When a new preliminary investigation is initiated in 2014, should the case be dismissed on the ground of prescription, considering the State’s argument that the officer’s 16-year absence tolled the prescriptive period under Article 91 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC)?

Answer: Yes, the case should be dismissed due to prescription.

The prescriptive period for a violation of R.A. No. 3019 is governed by Act No. 3326. The 15-year period began to run upon the discovery of the violation in 1995 (Sec. 2, Act No. 3326). The 15-year period expired in 2010.

First, the complaint filed with the wrong body in 1996 was a nullity and did not interrupt the running of prescription (Sec. 2, Act No. 3326).

Second, the State’s contention regarding the tolling of prescription due to the officer’s absence (Article 91, RPC) is untenable. The provisions of the RPC, while generally supplementary to special laws (Article 10, RPC), cannot be applied when a special law (Act No. 3326) specifically governs the subject matter of prescription. Since Act No. 3326 does not list the offender’s absence as a ground for interruption, the Supreme Court must not, by judicial fiat, supply that omission (Expressio unius est exclusio alterius). Therefore, the prescriptive period continued to run while the officer was abroad, extinguishing criminal liability in 2010.

---

RomualdezvMarcelo #PrescriptionOfOffenses #Act3326 #RA3019 #AntiGraftLaw #SALN #SpecialLaws #CriminalLawPH #VoidInformation #StatutoryConstruction #ExpressioUniusCriminalProcedure #Sandiganbayan #OmbudsmanPH #SupremeCourtPH #PhilippineBar #BarExamReview #CrimLawReview #LegalDoctrine #PublicAccountability #LawStudentPHCaseDigest #LegalUpdates #LawyerLife #StudyGramPH #LawSchool #DailyLegal #FutureLawyer #JusticeSystem #LegalAnalysis #KnowledgeSharing