Case Digest (G.R. No. 236956)
Facts:
The case involves the petitioner Department of Finance—Revenue Integrity Protection Service (DOF-RIPS), represented by Graft Prevention and Control Officers Joel M. Apolonio and Agapito C. Guarin, against respondents Office of the Ombudsman and Ramir Saunders Gomez, a Special Agent I of the Bureau of Customs. This Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court was filed to annul and set aside the Resolution dated June 23, 2017, and the Order dated October 20, 2017, issued by the Office of the Ombudsman concerning the administrative case OMB-C-C-15-0379.The antecedent facts trace back to August 28, 2015, when DOF-RIPS filed a complaint against Gomez for multiple violations, including the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act (Republic Act [RA] No. 3019) and the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees (RA No. 6713). Allegations included Gomez's failure to file his Statement of Assets, Liabilities, and Net Worth (SALN) for 2003, a
Case Digest (G.R. No. 236956)
Facts:
- Background of the Case
- The Department of Finance–Revenue Integrity Protection Service (DOF-RIPS), represented by Graft Prevention and Control Officers Joel M. Apolonio and Agapito C. Guarin, filed a complaint on August 28, 2015, against Ramir Saunders Gomez, Special Agent I of the Bureau of Customs.
- The complaint charged Gomez with violations under Republic Act (RA) No. 3019 (the “Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act”), RA No. 6713 (the “Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees”), and Articles 171(4) and 183 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC).
- Specifically, DOF-RIPS alleged that:
- Gomez failed to file his Statement of Assets, Liabilities, and Net Worth (SALN) for 2003.
- He omitted to disclose several assets (six lots in Old Cabalan, Olongapo City; a townhouse in Quezon City; a Toyota Revo; and a 9mm caliber pistol) in various SALNs for the years 1996–2009 or provided inconsistent information.
- He submitted multiple SALNs in 2006 that falsely declared specifics about a Toyota Vios and housing loans.
- The DOF-RIPS supported its claims with various documents submitted along with the complaint.
- Respondent’s Counter-Affidavit and Explanation
- In his Counter-Affidavit dated December 7, 2015, Gomez denied the charges, attributing the omissions and errors to the heavy workload as a Special Agent I and reliance on a bookkeeper, Liza Romerica.
- Gomez asserted that:
- He was not the owner of the six lots in Old Cabalan, evidenced by his absence of signature in the deeds of sale.
- The Toyota Revo had been sold before its declaration in the SALN.
- The 9mm pistol was entrusted for repair and was never returned, thus explaining its non-declaration.
- There was no instance of filing two SALNs for 2006, as the evidence provided pertained to different years, and his supposed false declarations were either misinterpreted or factually supported elsewhere.
- Proceedings Before the Office of the Ombudsman
- The Office of the Ombudsman, after reviewing the evidence submitted by both parties, issued a Resolution on June 23, 2017, directing that three Informations be filed for perjury (Article 183 of the RPC) and three for falsification (Article 171 of the RPC) against Gomez.
- Both DOF-RIPS and Gomez filed Motions for Reconsideration concerning the Resolution.
- On October 20, 2017, the Office of the Ombudsman denied both motions and affirmed its Resolution.
- Petition for Certiorari by DOF-RIPS
- On February 2, 2018, DOF-RIPS filed a Petition for Certiorari alleging grave abuse of discretion by the Office of the Ombudsman.
- The petitioner argued that:
- The non-filing of the 2003 SALN should not have been ruled as prescribed since the complaint was filed within the prescribed period.
- The willful and deliberate false assertions in other SALNs had not yet prescribed, despite the discovery of the felonies occurring in 2014–2015.
- DOF-RIPS insisted that Gomez be charged simultaneously under RA No. 3019 and RA No. 6713 and further requested that additional charges be included.
- In its Manifestation (in lieu of Comment) dated June 11, 2018, the Office of the Ombudsman opted not to participate in the petition, while Gomez contended that the Ombudsman had already acted with grave abuse of discretion.
Issues:
- Prescription of the Offenses
- Whether the non-filing of the 2003 SALN and the alleged false statements in subsequent SALNs are barred by the prescription periods applicable under RA No. 6713 and prescribed by Act No. 3326.
- Whether the DOF-RIPS’ assertion of a fifteen-year prescriptive period (applicable under RA No. 3019 as argued) holds instead of the eight-year period prescribed under RA No. 6713.
- Simultaneous Indictment Under RA No. 3019 and RA No. 6713
- Whether Gomez can be charged simultaneously for the same act under the two conflicting statutes given that RA No. 6713 explicitly amended/repealed inconsistent provisions of RA No. 3019 through its repealing clause (Section 16).
- Reckoning of the Prescription Period for Falsification and Perjury
- Whether the prescriptive period for the charges of falsification and perjury should begin at the time the SALNs were filed or from the time of discovery of the offense.
- Whether the approach adopted by the Office of the Ombudsman in computing the prescription period (i.e., using the dates of filing and registration as notice to the public) is legally correct.
- Allegation of Grave Abuse of Discretion
- Whether the Office of the Ombudsman, in ruling that the offenses had prescribed and in determining the appropriate charges, acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to a lack or excess of jurisdiction.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)