TL;DR

In a petition for certiorari, the Supreme Court affirmed the Ombudsman’s decision to dismiss charges against Digno A. Enerio for violations of Republic Act No. 6713 (Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees) and Republic Act No. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act) related to his Statements of Assets, Liabilities, and Net Worth (SALNs). The Court upheld the Ombudsman’s finding that the charges for non-filing and non-disclosure in SALNs had prescribed, applying the principle that prescription for SALN violations generally starts from the date of filing, not discovery. Furthermore, the Court deferred to the Ombudsman’s discretion in determining probable cause, agreeing that the non-disclosure of GSIS loans, being from a government institution, did not automatically imply concealment of unexplained wealth. This ruling underscores the importance of timely filing of complaints in SALN cases and respects the Ombudsman’s wide latitude in prosecutorial decisions, especially when there is no clear evidence of ill-gotten wealth.

Time’s Ticking: When SALN Violations Fall Beyond Reach

This case, Department of Finance-Revenue Integrity Protection Service (DOF-RIPS) v. Digno A. Enerio, revolves around the crucial issue of prescription in cases involving violations of Statement of Assets, Liabilities, and Net Worth (SALN) filing requirements for public officials. The DOF-RIPS initiated a lifestyle check on Digno A. Enerio, an employee of the Bureau of Customs, and found discrepancies and omissions in his SALNs filed over several years. Consequently, DOF-RIPS filed a complaint with the Ombudsman, alleging violations of RA 6713 and RA 3019. The Ombudsman, however, dismissed most of the charges, citing prescription and lack of probable cause for certain allegations, leading DOF-RIPS to seek recourse with the Supreme Court via a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. The central legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the Ombudsman committed grave abuse of discretion in finding no probable cause to charge Enerio for violations related to his SALNs.

The DOF-RIPS argued that the prescriptive period for SALN violations should commence upon the discovery of the offense, not from the date of commission, relying on the ‘discovery rule’ under Act No. 3326. They contended that they could not have known about Enerio’s false declarations without conducting a thorough verification process. However, the Supreme Court disagreed. The Court clarified the application of Act No. 3326, which governs prescription for offenses under special laws like RA 6713 and RA 3019. Section 2 of Act No. 3326 provides two points for reckoning prescription: the date of commission and, if unknown, the date of discovery. The Court emphasized that the ‘discovery rule’ is an exception, applicable when the violation is inherently concealed.

In SALN cases, the Court reasoned, the general rule applies: prescription runs from the date of commission, which is the date of filing or non-filing of the SALN. The Court cited Del Rosario v. People, highlighting that agencies like the Ombudsman and Civil Service Commission are mandated to monitor SALN compliance and have reasonable means to detect violations. Furthermore, SALNs are public documents, accessible for inspection and copying. Therefore, the Court found the DOF-RIPS’s claim of ‘blameless ignorance’ implausible, as the information was readily available. Applying this, the Court upheld the Ombudsman’s finding that the charges related to Enerio’s 1997 and 2005 SALN violations had prescribed, as more than eight years had passed since the filing deadlines when the complaint was lodged in 2016.

Beyond prescription, the Court also addressed the Ombudsman’s finding of no probable cause regarding Enerio’s non-disclosure of GSIS loans in his SALNs. The DOF-RIPS argued that intent was irrelevant because SALN violations are mala prohibita – wrong because prohibited by law. While acknowledging this classification, the Court concurred with the Ombudsman’s assessment that non-disclosure of GSIS loans, in itself, did not establish probable cause for violating anti-graft laws. The Ombudsman reasoned that GSIS loans are contracted with a government institution, and their records are publicly accessible. There was no allegation or evidence suggesting Enerio intended to conceal unexplained wealth or defraud the government through these omissions.

The Supreme Court reiterated its consistent policy of non-interference in the Ombudsman’s determination of probable cause, absent grave abuse of discretion. Grave abuse of discretion implies an arbitrary, capricious, or whimsical exercise of power, amounting to lack of jurisdiction. The Court found no such abuse in the Ombudsman’s reasoned dismissal of charges. The Ombudsman’s role is to investigate and prosecute, and courts generally defer to their professional judgment unless it is clearly tainted with grave abuse. In this case, the Ombudsman’s decision was grounded in legal principles of prescription and a reasonable assessment of evidence concerning probable cause. The Court thus dismissed the DOF-RIPS’s petition, affirming the Ombudsman’s Resolution and Order.

FAQs

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact Atty. Gabriel Ablola through gaboogle.com or via email at connect@gaboogle.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: DOF-RIPS vs. Enerio, G.R. No. 238630, May 12, 2021