The Supreme Court clarified that prosecutions for failing to file a Statement of Assets, Liabilities, and Net Worth (SALN) under Republic Act (RA) No. 6713 must be initiated within eight years of the violation. This ruling emphasizes the importance of timely action in holding public officials accountable for transparency. The Court also underscored that if falsehoods are asserted in the SALNs, the prescriptive period for perjury is ten years, starting from when the SALN was filed. This decision highlights the balance between the state’s interest in prosecuting wrongdoing and an individual’s right to a timely resolution of allegations.

Sunset on Charges? How Timeliness Shields Public Officers in SALN Cases

This case revolves around Ramir Saunders Gomez, a Special Agent I at the Bureau of Customs (BOC), who was accused by the Department of Finance-Revenue Integrity Protection Service (DOF-RIPS) of violating anti-graft laws and ethical standards due to alleged discrepancies and omissions in his SALNs. The DOF-RIPS filed a complaint asserting that Gomez failed to file his SALN for 2003, and that his SALNs from 1996 to 2013 contained false declarations. The central legal issue before the Supreme Court was whether the prescriptive periods for these alleged violations had already lapsed when the complaint was filed. Prescription, in legal terms, refers to the time limit within which legal proceedings must be initiated, after which the right to sue or prosecute is lost.

The DOF-RIPS argued that the Office of the Ombudsman committed grave abuse of discretion in ruling that the period to initiate actions against Gomez had prescribed. They contended that Gomez could be indicted for violating both Section 7 of RA No. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act) and Section 8 of RA No. 6713 (Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees). The DOF-RIPS also maintained that the prescriptive period for violations of RA No. 3019 is fifteen years. In its defense, the Office of the Ombudsman stated that upon careful evaluation of the Petition, the Ombudsman deemed it prudent not to participate in this case, as it would otherwise be advocating for the innocence or non-culpability of private respondent Gomez. Private respondent Gomez sought that the DOF-RIPS’ Petition be dismissed for lack of merit.

The Supreme Court, however, disagreed with the DOF-RIPS’ arguments. The Court clarified the interplay between RA No. 3019 and RA No. 6713, particularly concerning the penalties and prescriptive periods for non-filing of SALNs. Section 7 of RA No. 3019 mandates the filing of SALNs and prescribes penalties for violations. Section 8 of RA No. 6713 similarly requires public officials to file SALNs, but it imposes heavier penalties for non-compliance, including imprisonment, fines, and disqualification from holding public office. Crucially, Section 16 of RA No. 6713 contains a repealing clause, which states that any laws inconsistent with it are repealed or modified, unless those laws provide for a heavier penalty.

Based on these provisions, the Court determined that RA No. 6713 amended Section 7 of RA No. 3019 because it provides for a heavier penalty for the same offense of not filing a SALN. Thus, Gomez could not be indicted simultaneously under both RA No. 3019 and RA No. 6713 for the same offense. The Court emphasized that the repeal under Section 16 of RA No. 6713 is explicit and categorical, not implied. Further, the Court addressed the prescriptive period for violations of RA No. 6713, referencing Act No. 3326, which governs the prescriptive periods for offenses under special laws that do not specify their own prescriptive periods. The Supreme Court has consistently held that the prescriptive period for filing an action for violation of Section 8 of RA No. 6713 is eight years, as per Section 1 of Act No. 3326.

The Court addressed the issue of when the prescriptive period should begin for Gomez’s alleged falsehoods in his SALNs. The DOF-RIPS argued that the period should be reckoned from the date they received compliance from government agencies confirming the falsity of the statements. The Ombudsman, however, ruled that the prescription for Gomez’s commission of falsification and perjury should be reckoned from the commission of the said offenses. The Supreme Court upheld the Ombudsman’s finding that the prescriptive period should commence from the date the SALNs were filed. The Court explained that, upon filing, the SALN becomes subject to review by the authorities, and any errors or inaccuracies should be discovered during this review. The Court cited Department of Finance – Revenue Integrity Protection Service v. Ombudsman and Germar, which held that discovery of falsification and perjury should be reckoned from the time of filing the SALN.

The Court explained that the prescriptive period for violation of Article 183 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC), or perjury, is ten years upon filing of the SALN. This position is consistent with Section 8(C)(4) of RA 6713, which states that any statement filed under this Act shall be available to the public for a period of ten (10) years after receipt of the statement. After such period, the statement may be destroyed unless needed in an ongoing investigation. This implies that the investigation should have commenced prior to the end of the ten-year period. Since more than ten years had lapsed from the filing of Gomez’s SALNs before the complaint was filed, the prosecution for perjury was barred by prescription.

Ultimately, the Supreme Court found no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the Office of the Ombudsman. The Court reiterated that it does not interfere with the Ombudsman’s exercise of its investigative and prosecutorial powers unless there is a clear showing of arbitrary or despotic action. Disagreement with the Ombudsman’s findings, without demonstrating a virtual refusal to perform a duty under the law, is not sufficient to warrant judicial intervention. The Court emphasized that the DOF-RIPS failed to exhibit any specific act or omission on the part of the Office of the Ombudsman that would show a capricious or whimsical exercise of judgment amounting to a lack or excess of jurisdiction.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether the prescriptive periods for alleged violations in Ramir Saunders Gomez’s SALNs had lapsed when the complaint was filed. This involved determining the correct prescriptive period and when it began to run.
What is a SALN?	A Statement of Assets, Liabilities, and Net Worth (SALN) is a declaration under oath of a public official’s assets, liabilities, and net worth. It’s designed to promote transparency and accountability in public service.
What laws govern the filing of SALNs?	Republic Act (RA) No. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act) and RA No. 6713 (Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees) both govern the filing of SALNs. However, RA 6713 has effectively modified RA 3019 in terms of penalties for non-filing.
What is the prescriptive period for non-filing of SALN under RA 6713?	The prescriptive period for violations of Section 8 of RA No. 6713 (non-filing of SALN) is eight years, according to Act No. 3326. This means a case must be filed within eight years of the violation.
When does the prescriptive period for falsification in a SALN begin?	The prescriptive period for falsification and perjury in a SALN begins from the date the SALN is filed. This is because the SALN becomes subject to review by authorities upon filing.
What is the prescriptive period for perjury related to SALNs?	The prescriptive period for perjury under Article 183 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC) in relation to SALNs is ten years from the date of filing. This means that legal proceedings for perjury must commence within ten years of the filing date.
Can a public official be charged under both RA 3019 and RA 6713 for the same SALN violation?	No, a public official cannot be charged under both RA 3019 and RA 6713 for the same violation. RA 6713 provides for heavier penalties and effectively amended the relevant provisions of RA 3019.
What is grave abuse of discretion?	Grave abuse of discretion is an act done in a capricious or whimsical manner, equivalent to a lack of jurisdiction. It must be so patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of a positive duty or a virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law.

This case underscores the significance of adhering to deadlines when pursuing legal actions against public officials for SALN violations. The Supreme Court’s decision emphasizes the importance of timely investigations and prosecutions to ensure accountability and transparency in public service.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE-REVENUE INTEGRITY PROTECTION SERVICE (DOF-RIPS) VS. OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN AND RAMIR SAUNDERS GOMEZ, G.R. No. 236956, November 24, 2021