Period to sue false informants

Batas Pambansa Blg. 242 amends Section 2 of Presidential Decree No. 749 for purposes of setting the rule on when the denounced public officer may file actions against false or malicious informants or witnesses.
Presidential Decree No. 749 is the operative legal framework on immunity from prosecution for certain bribery/graft-related informants and witnesses.

Section 2 of Presidential Decree No. 749 (as amended by Batas Pambansa Blg. 242) limits immunity where the information and/or testimony is false and malicious.
The amended rule ensures that immunity does not shield an informant or witness who makes false and malicious statements to harass, molest, or prejudice a denounced public officer.
The amended rule preserves the denounced public officer’s ability to pursue civil, administrative, or criminal remedies against the false or malicious informant or witness.

Section 2 provides that the immunity granted under the law shall not attach if it turns out subsequently that the information and/or testimony is false and malicious.
Section 2 likewise removes immunity where the information and/or testimony is made only for the purpose of harassing, molesting or in any way prejudicing the public officer denounced.
When the conditions for false and malicious intent are met, the denounced public officer must be allowed to pursue remedies against the informant or witness.

Section 2 entitles the denounced public officer to bring any action, civil, administrative or criminal against the informant or witness.
The right to sue attaches to the informant or witness who gave the false and malicious information and/or testimony.
The action is for the denounced public officer, as the public officer subject of the challenged testimony or information.

Section 2 requires that the civil, administrative, or criminal action may be commenced only after the dismissal of the case against the denounced public officer after preliminary investigation.
Section 2 also allows commencement after the denounced public officer’s acquittal by a competent court.
The “commencement” restriction applies as a condition precedent to filing the action against the informant or witness.

Section 2 provides that the prescriptive periods for the various actions under the amended section start to run from the time such actions may be commenced as provided in the law.
The law’s rule ties the start of prescription to the legally permitted filing point: after dismissal after preliminary investigation or after acquittal by a competent court.

Batas Pambansa Blg. 242 takes effect upon its approval on November 11, 1982.