Case Summary (G.R. No. 194159)
Allegations and Criminal Information
Lee, abusing his position and moral ascendancy over an Administrative Aide VI, allegedly demanded sexual favors by hotel invitations, gifts, messages, and unwelcome surveillance, creating a hostile work environment in violation of RA 7877. An Information to that effect was filed on March 21, 2017.
Lower-Court Proceedings
Respondent moved (March 30, 2017) for judicial determination of probable cause and for dismissal on prescription grounds. The Sandiganbayan denied the motion (June 2, 2017) and, upon reconsideration (September 6, 2017), reversed itself and dismissed the case. A Motion for Reconsideration by the OSP was denied (October 6, 2017), prompting this Rule 45 petition.
Prescription Under Special Laws
Act 3326, as amended, provides that prescription for special laws begins on the day of commission—or discovery if unknown—and is interrupted by the institution of proceedings for investigation. RA 7877 prescribes three years for filing an Information after tolled periods.
Tolling by Preliminary Investigation
Supreme Court precedents (Panaguiton v. DOJ; People v. Pangilinan) establish that, for special laws, the filing of a complaint with the prosecutor’s office or investigating body interrupts prescription. Here, the affidavit-complaint filed with the Ombudsman on April 1, 2014 tolled the three-year period.
Inapplicability of Jadewell Doctrine
Jadewell v. Lidua, which held that only the filing of an Information in court interrupts prescription, pertains exclusively to municipal-ordinance violations. It does not override the settled rule for special laws reaffirmed in Pangilinan.
Procedural Defects and Substantial Compliance
Respondent chall
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 194159)
Facts
- Mateo A. Lee, Jr. served as Deputy Executive Director of the National Council on Disability Affairs in Quezon City.
- Between February 14, 2013 and March 20, 2014, Lee allegedly used his official position to demand sexual favors from Diane Jane M. Paguirigan, an Administrative Aide VI under his direct supervision.
- The harassment took various forms: invitations to check in at a hotel, delivery of flowers and food, messages of endearment despite protests, uninvited visits to her house and church, inquiries about her with relatives and friends, and following her home.
- Paguirigan’s work environment became intimidating, hostile, and offensive as a result of these acts.
Procedural History
- April 1, 2014: Affidavit-Complaint for sexual harassment filed with the Office of the Ombudsman.
- March 21, 2017: Information charging Lee with violation of Republic Act No. 7877 (Anti-Sexual Harassment Act of 1995) filed before the Sandiganbayan.
- March 30, 2017: Lee moved for judicial determination of probable cause and outright dismissal on grounds of prescription; OSP opposed.
- June 2, 2017: Sandiganbayan denied Lee’s motion.
- June 29, 2017: Lee filed motion for reconsideration of the June 2 Resolution; OSP filed comment.
- September 6, 2017: Sandiganbayan granted reconsideration, set aside its June 2 Resolution, and dismissed the case as prescribed.
- September 18, 2017: OSP filed motion for reconsideration of the September 6 Resolution.
- October 6, 2017: Sandiganbayan denied OSP’s motion.
- September 16, 2019: Supreme Court decision on the Petition for Review filed under Rule 45.
Issue
- Whether the filing of the affidavit-complaint with the Office of the Ombudsman on April 1, 2014 tolled the three-year prescriptive period under RA 7877, thereby rendering the March 21, 2017 Information