FACTS
The Department of Finance–Revenue Integrity Protection Service (DOF-RIPS) filed a complaint before the Office of the Ombudsman against Ramir Saunders Gomez, a Special Agent I of the Bureau of Customs (BOC), for violations of Republic Act No. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act), Republic Act No. 6713 (Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees), and Articles 171(4) (Falsification by Public Officer) and 183 (Perjury) of the Revised Penal Code (RPC). DOF-RIPS alleged that Gomez failed to declare several real properties in his Statements of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth (SALNs) for various years despite the issuance of Transfer Certificates of Title in his name.
After conducting a preliminary investigation, the Ombudsman found probable cause only for violation of Section 8 of R.A. No. 6713 for Gomez's non-filing of his 2003 SALN. However, it dismissed the charge under Section 7 of R.A. No. 3019, holding that this provision had effectively been modified by Section 8 of R.A. No. 6713, which prescribes a heavier penalty for the same omission. The Ombudsman likewise dismissed the charges for falsification and perjury, ruling that they had already prescribed.
DOF-RIPS sought reconsideration, arguing that Gomez should simultaneously be prosecuted under R.A. No. 3019 and R.A. No. 6713, and that the offenses of falsification and perjury had not yet prescribed because prescription should commence only upon the government's actual discovery of the omitted properties. The Ombudsman denied the motion, prompting DOF-RIPS to file a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 before the Supreme Court, alleging that the Ombudsman committed grave abuse of discretion.
ISSUE
Whether or not the Office of the Ombudsman gravely abused its discretion in ruling that the non-filing of a SALN should be prosecuted only under Section 8 of Republic Act No. 6713, and not simultaneously under Section 7 of Republic Act No. 3019.
Whether or not the criminal charges for falsification under Article 171(4) and perjury under Article 183 of the Revised Penal Code had already prescribed, and whether the prescriptive period should be reckoned from the filing of the SALN or from the government's subsequent discovery of the omitted properties.
Whether or not the Ombudsman committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the challenged criminal charges and in determining the existence or absence of probable cause.
HELD
The Supreme Court DENIED the petition and AFFIRMED the Resolution and Order of the Office of the Ombudsman. The Court held that the Ombudsman did not commit grave abuse of discretion. It reiterated that the determination of probable cause is primarily an executive function lodged in the Office of the Ombudsman under the 1987 Constitution and Republic Act No. 6770 (The Ombudsman Act of 1989). Judicial review through certiorari is proper only upon a clear showing of capricious or arbitrary exercise of judgment amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, which was absent in this case.
The Court agreed that Section 8 of Republic Act No. 6713 effectively modified Section 7 of Republic Act No. 3019 with respect to the failure to file a SALN. It explained that Section 16 of R.A. No. 6713 expressly repeals or modifies inconsistent laws unless they impose a heavier penalty. Since R.A. No. 6713 prescribes heavier penalties than Section 7 of R.A. No. 3019 for the same omission, prosecution should proceed only under R.A. No. 6713. Thus, Gomez could not be simultaneously indicted under both statutes for the same act of non-filing of his SALN.
The Court likewise sustained the Ombudsman's finding that the offenses of falsification and perjury had already prescribed. Applying its earlier ruling in Department of Finance–Revenue Integrity Protection Service v. Ombudsman and Germar, the Court held that the prescriptive period begins upon the filing of the SALN, because the offense is consummated at that moment and the SALN immediately becomes subject to examination by the proper authorities. The Court rejected DOF-RIPS' argument that prescription should commence only upon the government's actual discovery of the omitted properties, emphasizing that public records, including land titles, constitute constructive notice to the whole world.
Accordingly, the Supreme Court upheld the Ombudsman's dismissal of the charges for violation of Section 7 of R.A. No. 3019, falsification, and perjury, while sustaining the finding of probable cause only for the violation of Section 8 of Republic Act No. 6713. The Court reiterated that absent a showing of grave abuse of discretion, it will not interfere with the Ombudsman's exercise of its constitutionally and statutorily vested investigatory and prosecutorial powers
No comments:
Post a Comment