Case Summary (G.R. No. 139405)
Background of the Case
The case involves a petition for review on certiorari concerning the dismissal of the Information in Criminal Case No. 13044 against Arturo Pacificador, charged with a violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. The charges stem from alleged corrupt actions taken between December 6, 1975, and January 6, 1976, involving the sale of government property at a grossly disadvantageous price, causing substantial financial injury to the government.
Initial Proceedings
After being arraigned, Pacificador filed a Motion to Dismiss the Information, claiming that the charge had prescribed and that the Information did not properly charge an offense according to existing jurisprudence. The Sandiganbayan initially denied this motion, ruling that the prescription period was interrupted by the filing of the complaint, but it lacked clarity regarding the complaint's filing date.
Reconsideration and Dismissal
Following the denial, on December 7, 1998, Pacificador sought reconsideration, arguing that the prescription period was, indeed, expired due to the applicable law governing special offenses. On February 3, 1999, the Sandiganbayan agreed and dismissed the Information, clarifying its earlier application of the Revised Penal Code instead of the more relevant Act No. 3326 governing prescription periods for special laws.
Petitioner's Argument
The petitioner challenged the Sandiganbayan's dismissal, asserting that R.A. No. 3019 included its own fifteen-year prescriptive period, which had not been properly considered. Additionally, the petitioner argued that the crime could only be deemed discovered in 1987, when a formal complaint was filed, therefore allowing the information's filing in 1988 to fall within the allowable period.
Respondent's Defense
Respondent Pacificador maintained that the sale of the property was registered, implicating constructive notice to all parties, thus marking the start of the prescription period. He further cited past judicial decisions underscoring that under Act No. 3326, the prescription periods should not begin anew if the complainants were aware of the transaction details through official registration.
Court's Analysis and Ruling
The Supreme Court upheld the Sandiganbayan's ruling, emphasizing that Act No. 3326 indeed governs the prescriptive period for R.A. No. 3019 violations. It noted that
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 139405)
Case Overview
- The case involves a petition for review on certiorari of the Sandiganbayan's resolution dated February 3, 1999.
- The resolution granted a motion for reconsideration that dismissed the Information in Criminal Case No. 13044 against respondent Arturo Pacificador.
- The case centers on a charge of violating Republic Act No. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act) involving the sale of government property.
Background of the Case
- On October 27, 1988, Arturo Pacificador and co-accused Jose T. Marcelo were charged with a violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.
- The Information alleged that between December 6, 1975, and January 6, 1976, Pacificador, as Chairman of the National Shipyard and Steel Corporation, conspired with Marcelo to sell government land at a price significantly below its market value, resulting in unjust benefits to the Philippine Smelters Corporation and substantial loss to the government.
Proceedings and Motion to Dismiss
- After his arraignment, Pacificador filed a Motion to Dismiss on the grounds of:
- Lack of jurisdiction due to the prescription of the crime.
- The Information failing to charge an offense based on a Supreme Court ruling in a related case.
- The Sandiganbayan initially denied the Motion to Dismiss on November 10, 1998, ruling that the filing of the co