TL;DR

The Supreme Court affirmed that the prescriptive period for violations of Republic Act No. 6713 (Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees) regarding Statements of Assets, Liabilities, and Net Worth (SALNs) begins from the date the SALN was due, not from the date of discovery of non-compliance. This means the government must promptly review SALNs and initiate action within eight years for violations with penalties of imprisonment up to five years. The Court emphasized that the government has the means to easily detect non-filing or defective SALNs. Consequently, charges against a Revenue Officer for SALN violations from 2000-2005 were deemed prescribed, as the complaint was filed in 2014, exceeding the eight-year limit. Furthermore, the Court clarified that falsification of SALNs under Article 171(4) of the Revised Penal Code requires proof that the public officer abused their specific office powers to commit the falsification, which is generally not applicable to SALN filings across the board.

Statutory Deadlines and Missed Opportunities: The SALN Prescription Case

This case revolves around the crucial question of when the clock starts ticking for prosecuting public officials who fail to fully disclose their assets in their Statements of Assets, Liabilities, and Net Worth (SALNs). At its heart is Evelyn Rodriguez Ramirez, a Revenue Officer at the Bureau of Internal Revenue, whose SALNs from 2000 to 2013 became the subject of scrutiny by the Department of Finance – Revenue Integrity Protection Service (DOF-RIPS). DOF-RIPS, acting on a tip, investigated Ramirez and found discrepancies and omissions in her SALNs, leading to charges before the Office of the Ombudsman for violations of Republic Act No. 6713, falsification, perjury, and forfeiture of ill-gotten wealth. The Ombudsman found probable cause for violations of RA 6713 for SALNs from 2006 onwards but dismissed charges related to earlier SALNs (2000-2005) due to prescription, and also dismissed the falsification charge. DOF-RIPS challenged this decision, arguing that prescription should run from the discovery of the violations and that falsification charges were warranted. The Supreme Court was tasked to determine if the Ombudsman committed grave abuse of discretion in its rulings.

The Supreme Court firmly sided with the Ombudsman on the issue of prescription for SALN violations. The Court reiterated the principle that for special laws like RA 6713, the prescriptive period generally starts from the day of the violation. While an exception exists for offenses “not known at the time,” the Court clarified this “blameless ignorance doctrine” does not apply when the government has “reasonable means of knowing” about the offense. In the context of SALNs, the Court emphasized that these documents are publicly accessible, and government agencies like the Ombudsman and the Civil Service Commission have established systems to monitor compliance. As the decision highlights:

The CSC and the Office of the Ombudsman both issued memorandum circulars in 1994 and 1995 to announce guidelines or procedures relative to the filing of the SALNs pursuant to R.A. No. 6713. Ombudsman Memorandum Circular No. 95-13…publicized that the Office of the Ombudsman would create a task force that would maintain a computerized database of all public officials and employees required to file SALNs, and that such task force would monitor full compliance with the law.

Building on this, the Court referenced previous rulings like Del Rosario v. People, Casayuran, Germar, and Eneiro, all consistently holding that the prescriptive period for SALN violations runs from the filing deadline. The rationale is that the government is equipped to readily identify non-compliance. The Court underscored that Section 10 of RA 6713 mandates a “Review and Compliance Procedure,” requiring government offices to check SALNs for timeliness, completeness, and proper form. This mechanism is designed for immediate detection and correction of errors, implying that the government cannot claim ignorance of SALN deficiencies.

Furthermore, the Court pointed to the practical implications of Section 8(C)(4) of RA 6713, which allows for the destruction of SALNs after ten years unless needed for an ongoing investigation. This provision reinforces the notion that the government is expected to act promptly on SALN irregularities. The Court stated:

The urgency and limited window of time within which the government must act and pursue liability in relation to unfiled or defective SALNs is confirmed by how Section 8(C)(4) of the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees mandates the keeping of SALNs for a period of only 10 years.

Regarding the charge of falsification under Article 171(4) of the Revised Penal Code, the Supreme Court upheld the Ombudsman’s dismissal. While falsification has a longer 15-year prescriptive period, a key element is that the public officer must have “taken advantage of his official position.” The Court clarified that this means wielding “particular power” related to the document’s preparation due to their specific office and functions. The Court reasoned that SALN filing is a general requirement for almost all public officials, not tied to the unique competencies of a specific office like Ramirez’s position as a Revenue Officer. Thus, failing to declare assets in a SALN, while a violation of RA 6713, does not automatically equate to falsification under Article 171(4) unless a specific abuse of office-related power is demonstrated.

In essence, the Supreme Court’s decision reinforces the importance of timely action in prosecuting SALN violations. It clarifies that the government cannot invoke the “discovery rule” to extend prescription indefinitely when mechanisms are in place for prompt detection of non-compliance. While acknowledging the seriousness of Ramirez’s omissions, the Court emphasized adherence to legal procedures and prescription periods. The ruling serves as a reminder for government agencies to diligently perform their review and compliance duties related to SALNs to ensure accountability within the bounds of the law.

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. Ombudsman, G.R. No. 238510, July 14, 2021