Del Rosario vs.

People (2018)

MELITA O. DEL ROSARIO vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

G.R. No. 199930, June 27, 2018

BERSAMIN, J.:

Facts: On October 28, 2004, the Office of the Ombudsman

brought a complaint charging the petitioner with the violation of
Section 8 of R.A. No. 6713; dishonesty; grave misconduct; and
conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service for her failure
to file her SALNs for the years 1990 and 1991. On March 11,
2008, the Office of the Ombudsman criminally charged the
petitioner for two violations of R.A. No. 6713. On November 19,
2008, the petitioner filed a Motion to Quash on the ground of
prescription of the offenses. The MeTC granted the Motion to
Quash.

However, the Sandiganbayan overturned the decision and ruled

that the eight-year prescriptive period for violation of Section 8 of
R.A. No. 6713 commenced to run from the discovery of the
offenses.

Issue: Whether or not the eight-year prescriptive period for

violation of Republic Act No. 6713 (Code of Conduct and Ethical
Standards for Public Officials and Employees) should be
reckoned from the filing of the detailed sworn statement of assets,
liabilities and net worth (SALN), or from the discovery of the non-
filing thereof.
Ruling: The Sandiganbayan erred in applying the discovery rule
to the petitioner's cases.

As a general rule, prescription begins to run from the date of the

commission of the offense especially if the necessary information
based on which the crime could be discovered is readily available
to the public. If the date of the commission of the violation is not
known, it shall be counted form the date of discovery thereof.

In this case, the discovery rule does not apply for the State had
no reason not to be presumed to know of petitioner’s omissions
during the eight-year period of prescription set in Act No. 3326. As
such, the offenses could have been known within the eight-year
period starting from the moment of their commission. Indeed, the
Office of the Ombudsman or the CSC, the two agencies of the
Government invested with the primary responsibility of monitoring
the compliance with R.A. No. 6713, should have known of her
omissions during the period of prescription.

Ratio Decidendi: If the necessary information, data, or records

based on which the crime could be discovered is readily available
to the public, the general rule applies. Prescription shall,
therefore, run from the date of the commission of the crime.

Gist: This case seeks the reversal of the decision of the

Sandiganbayan setting aside the ruling of the RTC, upholding the
orders issued by the MeTC granting her motion to quash the
informations.