G.R. No. 199930 - Del Rosario vs. People

Case Summary (G.R. No. 199930)

Factual Background

The petitioner was a government employee serving as Chief of Valuation and Classification Division, Office of the Commissioner, Bureau of Customs, Port Area, Manila. The Office of the Ombudsman charged her with failing to file sworn Statements of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth (SALNs) for the years 1990 and 1991. The informations alleged that she willfully failed to file the SALN for 1990 by April 30, 1991 and the SALN for 1991 by April 30, 1992, as required by law.

Initial Proceedings in the Trial Courts

On November 19, 2008 the petitioner moved to quash the informations on the ground that the offenses had prescribed. The Metropolitan Trial Court granted the motion to quash on September 18, 2009 and denied the State’s motion for reconsideration on April 23, 2010. The State appealed to the Regional Trial Court, which on October 6, 2010 affirmed the MeTC’s orders quashing the informations.

Sandiganbayan Proceedings and Decision

The State appealed the RTC decision to the Sandiganbayan. The Sandiganbayan reversed the RTC on August 16, 2011 and ordered the MeTC to proceed with trial. The Sandiganbayan applied the discovery rule and concluded that prescription should be reckoned from the discovery of the nonfiling because the Office of the Ombudsman could not reasonably have known of omissions on the dates the SALNs were due.

Issue Presented

Whether the period of prescription for the charged violations of R.A. No. 6713 began to run on the dates of the alleged commission of the offenses or from their discovery.

Ruling of the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court held that the appeal had merit. The Court reversed and set aside the Sandiganbayan decision dated August 16, 2011, and affirmed the RTC decision of October 6, 2010 upholding the quashal of the informations.

Legal Framework Governing Prescription

Section 8 of R.A. No. 6713 prescribes the duty of public officials and employees to file sworn SALNs within thirty days after assuming office, on or before April 30 of every year thereafter, and within thirty days after separation from the service. R.A. No. 6713 does not set a prescriptive period for criminal violations. Consequently, Act No. 3326 governs. Section 1 of Act No. 3326 sets varying prescriptive periods, including eight years for offenses punished by imprisonment of two years or more but less than six years. Section 2 of Act No. 3326 provides that prescription shall begin to run from the day of the commission of the violation, “and if the violation be not known at the time, from the discovery thereof and the institution of judicial proceedings.”

Application of Act No. 3326 to the Case

The Court found that the informations were filed well beyond eight years from the dates the SALNs were due: the complaint was filed October 28, 2004, which was thirteen years after the April 30, 1991 deadline for the 1990 SALN and twelve years after the April 30, 1992 deadline for the 1991 SALN. Under Section 1 of Act No. 3326, the offenses thus prescribed after eight years. The Court concluded that the MeTC and the RTC correctly quashed the informations.

Analysis of the Discovery Rule and Its Inapplicability

The Court reviewed the two-mode formulation in Section 2 of Act No. 3326. The first mode, the general rule, runs prescription from the day of commission. The second mode, the discovery rule or blameless ignorance doctrine, is an exception and permits reckoning from discovery when the violation was not known at the time and could not reasonably have been discovered. The Court emphasized jurisprudential guidelines drawn from the Behest Loans cases and related rulings: the discovery rule applies when information about the violation was suppressed, when connivance or concealment prevented discovery, or when martial law or comparable conditions made filing impossible. The Court found none of those conditions present here.

Accessibility of SALNs and Government Monitoring

The Court stressed that Section 8(C) of R.A. No. 6713 made SALNs available for inspection and copying at reasonable hours and kept them available for a period of ten years after receipt. The Court further noted that the Civil Service Commission and the Office of the Ombudsman issued memorandum circulars in 1994 and 1995 establishing procedures and a computerized database to monitor SALN filing and to identify noncompliance. Given these facts, the Court reasoned that the nonfiling was not concealed and that the responsible government agencies had reasonable means to know of the omissions within the prescriptive period.

Distinguishing Precedent Where Discovery Rule Applied

The Court distinguished this case from the Behest Loans jurisprudence and from cases such as Benedicto v. Abad Santos, Jr. and People v. Monteiro

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 199930)

Parties and Procedural Posture

Melita O. Del Rosario was the accused public officer and the petitioner who sought review of the Sandiganbayan decision reversing the quashal of informations.
People of the Philippines was the respondent that filed informations for failure to file sworn SALNs for 1990 and 1991.
The petitioner filed motions to quash Criminal Case Nos. 444354 and 444355 on the ground of prescription which the Metropolitan Trial Court granted and which the Regional Trial Court affirmed.
The State appealed to the Sandiganbayan which reversed the RTC and ordered trial to proceed, prompting the present appeal to the Supreme Court.

Key Factual Allegations

The petitioner was alleged to have willfully failed to file her detailed sworn Statement of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth (SALN) for the year 1990 and for the year 1991.
The informations alleged the failure to file the 1990 SALN in 1991 and the 1991 SALN in 1992 as required by law.
The General Investigation Bureau-A of the Office of the Ombudsman filed the complaint on October 28, 2004 and the Office of the Ombudsman filed the informations on March 11, 2008.
The petitioner held the position of Chief of Valuation and Classification Division, Office of the Commissioner, Bureau of Customs, Port Area, Manila at the time of the alleged omissions.

Statutory Framework

Republic Act No. 6713 Section 8 mandated the filing of sworn SALNs and Paragraph (A) fixed three deadlines: within 30 days of assumption, on or before April 30 of every year thereafter, and within 30 days after separation from service.
Section 8(C) of R.A. No. 6713 provided public accessibility to filed SALNs for inspection and copying and prescribed a ten-year availability period.
Act No. 3326 governed prescriptive periods for offenses under special laws that do not specify their own prescription and provided an eight-year prescriptive period for offenses punishable by imprisonment of two years or more but less than six years.
Section 2 of Act No. 3326 prescribed that prescription ran from the day of the commission of the violation, and, if the violation was not known at that time, from the discovery of the violation and the institution of judicial proceedings.
Republic Act No. 3019 was noted as also penalizing SALN-related failures but its 15-year prescriptive period in Section 11 was not applicable to the informations filed under R.A. No. 6713.

Issues Presented

The sole issue was whether the period of prescription for the charged violations began to run on the date of commission of the offenses or from the discovery of the non-filing of the SALNs.

Contentions of the Parties

The petitioner contended that prescription ran from the date of commission of the offenses and that the informations filed in 2008 were therefore time-barred under Act No. 3326.
The State contended that the Sandiganbayan correctly applied the discovery rule and that the prescriptive period should be reckoned from the discovery of the omissions rather than from the dates of commission.

Lower Courts' Decisions

The Metropolitan Trial Court, Branch 21 granted the petitioner’s motions to quash on September 18, 2009 and affirmed that grant on April 23, 20