G.R. No. 165510-33 - Romualdez vs. Marcelo

Case Summary (G.R. No. 165510-33)

Factual Background

Petitioner was charged in twenty-four informations for alleged violations of Section 7 of R.A. No. 3019 for failure to file Statements of Assets and Liabilities covering the years 1963–1985 during his public service. A complaint was lodged with the PCGG on May 8, 1987, and informations bearing the Sandiganbayan docket numbers 13406–13429 were later filed. The Sandiganbayan ultimately issued a Minute Resolution of dismissal on February 10, 2004, citing this Court’s earlier ruling that the informations had been filed by an unauthorized party.

Procedural History

Petitioner earlier secured relief in Romualdez v. Sandiganbayan, where this Court held that the original informations were void because they were filed by an unauthorized party. After new preliminary investigations and new informations were filed, which received new docket numbers (Criminal Case Nos. 28031–28049 at the Sandiganbayan and Criminal Case Nos. 04‑231857–04‑231860 at the Regional Trial Court of Manila), petitioner sought relief from the Ombudsman’s recommendation to prosecute. The Special First Division issued a Decision on September 23, 2005, which petitioner moved to reconsider. The Court granted reconsideration and rendered the present Decision on July 28, 2006.

Petitioner's Contentions

Petitioner argued that the Office of the Ombudsman gravely abused its discretion in recommending the filing of the twenty‑four informations under Section 7 of R.A. No. 3019. He contended that the prior dismissal by the Sandiganbayan of Criminal Case Nos. 13406–13429 barred further prosecution and that the offenses had prescribed. Petitioner maintained that prescription is a defense that may be raised even for the first time on appeal and that the Court could dismiss the pending cases on grounds of prescription.

Respondents' Arguments

The Ombudsman maintained that the Sandiganbayan’s dismissal of the prior informations did not render petitioner immune from prosecution because a valid preliminary investigation could lead to the filing of new informations. The Ombudsman asserted that the complaint filed with the PCGG in 1987 and the subsequent filing of informations in 1989 interrupted prescription. The PCGG argued that under the 1987 Constitution and R.A. No. 6770 (Ombudsman Act of 1989), the Ombudsman may reinvestigate without a new docket number, and that the Revised Penal Code, applied suppletorily, prevents running of prescription while the offender is absent from the Philippines.

Legal Issues Presented

The Court identified two principal questions: (1) whether the preliminary investigation conducted by the Ombudsman in Criminal Case Nos. 13406–13429 was a nullity; and (2) whether the offenses charged against petitioner had prescribed at the time the Office of the Special Prosecutor required his counter‑affidavit on March 3, 2004.

Court's Ruling on Validity of Preliminary Investigation

The Court reaffirmed its earlier ruling that the Ombudsman’s preliminary investigation and the subsequent new informations were valid. The Court explained that an order sustaining a motion to quash is not a bar to another prosecution unless the quash was based on grounds specified in Rule 117, Sec. 3(g) and (i). The use of the same docket numbers for reference did not render the proceedings invalid because new informations received new docket numbers (Criminal Case Nos. 28031–28049). The Court further held that the Ombudsman’s reinvestigation complied with directions imposed in Romualdez v. Sandiganbayan to afford petitioner due process under a proper investigator.

Court's Ruling on Prescription — Governing Law

The Court held that prescription in respect of offenses under R.A. No. 3019 is governed by Section 11 of that Act for the duration and by Act No. 3326 for the computation of when prescription begins and when it is interrupted. The Court noted that prior to amendment by B.P. Blg. 195 (March 16, 1982) the prescriptive period under Section 11 was ten years and that the amendment extended it to fifteen years, but such extension is not retroactive to offenses committed before the amendment.

Court's Reasoning on When Prescription Began to Run and Effect of Absence Abroad

Applying Act No. 3326, Sec. 2, the Court ruled that prescription began to run from discovery of the offense, which in the present case occurred on May 8, 1987—the date the complaint was filed by then Solicitor General Francisco I. Chavez with the PCGG. The Court rejected respondents’ contention that Article 91 of the Revised Penal Code tolled prescription during petitioner’s absence from the Philippines from 1986 until April 27, 2000. The Court reasoned that Act No. 3326 is dispositive for special laws and that its explicit silence on absence abroad means the legislature did not intend absence to interrupt prescription. The Court concluded that judicial supplementation by applying Article 91 was impermissible because courts may not fill legislative omissions by fiat and because special provisions governing prescription for special laws must prevail over general provisions.

Computation and Conclusion on Prescription

The Court applied the ten‑year prescriptive period to alleged offenses from 1962 through March 15, 1982, and the fifteen‑year period to alleged offenses from March 16, 1982 through 1985. Because prescription began to run on May 8, 1987, the ten‑year prescriptive period expired on May 8, 1997, and the fifteen‑year peri

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 165510-33)

Parties and Procedural Posture

BENJAMIN ("KOKOY") T.ROMUALDEZ, PETITIONER filed a Motion for Reconsideration challenging the Court's Decision of September 23, 2005 which had dismissed his petition and affirmed resolutions of the Office of the Special Prosecutor.
HON. SIMEON V. MARCELO, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS THE OMBUDSMAN, and the PRESIDENTIAL COMMISSION ON GOOD GOVERNMENT, RESPONDENTS, filed Comments opposing the Motion for Reconsideration and defending the prosecution and investigative acts taken.
The cases involved include Criminal Case Nos. 13406-13429 originally dismissed by the Sandiganbayan by Minute Resolution dated February 10, 2004 and later reinvestigated and refiled as Criminal Case Nos. 28031-28049 before the Sandiganbayan and as Criminal Case Nos. 04-231857-04-231860 before the Regional Trial Court of Manila.
The Supreme Court previously decided Romualdez v. Sandiganbayan, annulling certain Sandiganbayan orders and directing dismissal of the informations because they were filed by an unauthorized party.

Key Factual Allegations

Petitioner was charged with violations of Section 7 of Republic Act No. 3019 for alleged failure to file Statements of Assets and Liabilities for periods covering 1963-1966 and 1967-1985 while he served in the Department of Foreign Affairs and as Ambassador.
A complaint was filed by Solicitor General Francisco I. Chavez with the PCGG on May 8, 1987, and informations were thereafter filed with the Sandiganbayan in 1989.
The petitioner was absent from the Philippines from 1986 until April 27, 2000.
The Office of the Ombudsman conducted a preliminary investigation and on March 3, 2004 required petitioner to file a counter-affidavit in the reinvestigated matters.

Issues

Whether the preliminary investigation conducted by the Ombudsman in Criminal Case Nos. 13406-13429 was void or otherwise a nullity.
Whether the offenses charged against petitioner are barred by prescription.

Contentions

Petitioner contended that the Ombudsman gravely abused its discretion in recommending the filing of 24 informations, that the Ombudsman could not revive cases previously dismissed by the Sandiganbayan, and that the defense of prescription may be raised for the first time on appeal requiring dismissal.
The Ombudsman argued that dismissal of earlier informations did not confer immunity, that new informations may be filed after a valid preliminary investigation, that the PCGG complaint in 1987 and the filing of informations in 1989 interrupted prescription, and that petitioner's absence from the Philippines interrupted prescription under Article 91 of the Revised Penal Code.
The PCGG argued that under the 1987 Constitution and RA No. 6770 the Ombudsman need not await a new docket to conduct a preliminary investigation, and that because RA No. 3019 and Act No. 3326 are silent on absence from the Philippines the Revised Penal Code should be applied which, in their view, does not toll prescription.

Statutory Framework

Republic Act No. 3019, Section 7 prescribes the offenses charged and Section 11 sets the prescriptive period as fifteen years as amended by B.P. Blg. 195 but with ten-year application for offenses committed before March 16, 1982.
Act No. 3326, Section 2 governs prescription for offenses defined by special laws and provides that prescription begins from commission or discovery and is interrupted when proceedings are instituted against the guilty person.
Article 91, Revised Penal Code provides that the term of prescription shall not run when