TL;DR

The Supreme Court affirmed that charges against a Bureau of Customs agent for failing to file his 2003 SALN and making false statements in other SALNs were time-barred. The Court clarified that non-filing of SALN under RA 6713 has an 8-year prescriptive period, while perjury and falsification related to SALNs under the Revised Penal Code prescribe in 10 years, counted from the date the SALN was filed. This decision emphasizes the importance of timely filing complaints for SALN violations and clarifies the prescriptive periods applicable to different offenses arising from non-compliance and inaccuracies in Statements of Assets, Liabilities, and Net Worth.

Time Runs Out: When SALN Errors Go Unpunished

Can public officials evade accountability for inaccuracies or omissions in their Statements of Assets, Liabilities, and Net Worth (SALNs) simply by the passage of time? This was the central question in Department of Finance-Revenue Integrity Protection Service (DOF-RIPS) v. Office of the Ombudsman and Ramir Saunders Gomez. The DOF-RIPS sought to overturn the Ombudsman’s decision, arguing that the prescriptive periods for offenses related to SALN violations should be reckoned differently and for a longer duration. At the heart of the dispute was whether the Ombudsman correctly applied the principles of prescription in dismissing charges against a Bureau of Customs Special Agent for alleged SALN discrepancies.

The case originated from a complaint filed by DOF-RIPS against Ramir Saunders Gomez for violations of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act (RA 3019), the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees (RA 6713), and the Revised Penal Code (RPC) for perjury and falsification. DOF-RIPS alleged that Gomez failed to file his 2003 SALN and made false declarations in SALNs from 1996 to 2013. The Ombudsman, however, dismissed charges related to the 2003 non-filing and certain false declarations, citing prescription. DOF-RIPS contended that the Ombudsman erred in applying the prescriptive periods and in determining when the period should commence.

The Supreme Court addressed two key issues: first, whether RA 6713 superseded RA 3019 concerning penalties for non-filing of SALNs, and second, whether the prescriptive periods for non-filing and false declarations had indeed lapsed. Regarding the first issue, the Court affirmed that RA 6713, enacted in 1989, effectively amended Section 7 of RA 3019, which also pertained to SALN filing. Section 16 of RA 6713 contains a repealing clause, modifying inconsistent laws unless they provide for a heavier penalty. Since RA 6713 imposes heavier penalties for SALN violations than RA 3019, it takes precedence in prosecutions for non-filing. Therefore, the Court agreed with the Ombudsman that Gomez could only be charged under RA 6713 for non-filing, not RA 3019.

On the crucial matter of prescription for non-filing of SALN under RA 6713, the Court reiterated the established jurisprudence that the prescriptive period is eight (8) years, as governed by Act No. 3326, the general law for special offenses without specific prescriptive periods. Section 1 of Act No. 3326 sets an 8-year period for offenses punishable by imprisonment of two years or more, but less than six years, which aligns with the penalties under RA 6713. The Court emphasized that this 8-year period starts from the day of the violation, or if the violation is unknown, from its discovery. In Gomez’s case, the non-filing of the 2003 SALN occurred in 2004 (deadline for filing). Since the complaint was filed in 2015, more than 11 years had passed, exceeding the 8-year prescriptive period. Thus, the Court upheld the Ombudsman’s finding that the charge for non-filing the 2003 SALN had prescribed.

Regarding the false declarations in SALNs, the Court addressed the charges of perjury (Article 183, RPC) and falsification of public documents (Article 171, RPC). The prescriptive period for perjury, a correctional offense under the RPC, is ten (10) years. The contentious point was when this 10-year period begins. DOF-RIPS argued that prescription should commence upon their discovery of the falsity, which was in 2014-2015 when they received information from government agencies. However, the Court sided with the Ombudsman, holding that for SALN-related perjury and falsification, the discovery is reckoned from the date of filing the SALN itself.

The Court reasoned that SALNs are public documents, and their filing makes them accessible for review by authorities and the public.

“Once the SALN is filed, it is subject to review by the proper authorities. It is during the conduct of the review that errors or inaccuracies in the SALN may be determined. Ten (10) years is more than enough time to discover any such errors or inaccuracies.”

Furthermore, Section 8(C)(4) of RA 6713 itself provides that SALNs are publicly accessible for ten years, implying that investigations should ideally commence within this period. Applying this to Gomez’s case, the alleged false declarations in SALNs from 1996, 2004, 2005, and 2006 were filed more than ten years before the complaint in 2015. Consequently, the Court affirmed the Ombudsman’s decision that these charges, too, had prescribed.

This case underscores the critical importance of understanding prescription periods in administrative and criminal cases against public officials, particularly concerning SALN violations. It clarifies that while RA 6713 superseded RA 3019 for non-filing penalties, the prescriptive period for non-filing under RA 6713 is 8 years. For perjury and falsification related to SALNs under the RPC, the prescriptive period is 10 years, commencing from the date of SALN filing, not from the date of discovery by investigative bodies. This ruling serves as a reminder for agencies like DOF-RIPS to act promptly in investigating and filing charges for SALN irregularities to avoid the bar of prescription.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The central issue was whether the charges against Ramir Saunders Gomez for SALN violations had prescribed, specifically concerning non-filing of his 2003 SALN and false declarations in other SALNs.
What is the prescriptive period for non-filing of SALN under RA 6713?	The Supreme Court confirmed that the prescriptive period for non-filing of SALN under RA 6713 is eight (8) years, as provided by Act No. 3326.
What is the prescriptive period for perjury and falsification related to SALNs under the RPC?	The prescriptive period for perjury and falsification of public documents related to SALNs under the Revised Penal Code is ten (10) years.
When does the prescriptive period begin for SALN-related offenses?	For non-filing, it starts from the deadline to file the SALN. For perjury and falsification in SALNs, it begins from the date the SALN was filed, not from the date of discovery of the offense by investigators.
Which law governs penalties for non-filing of SALN: RA 3019 or RA 6713?	RA 6713 governs penalties for non-filing of SALN because it provides for heavier penalties and effectively amended Section 7 of RA 3019 in this regard.
What was the Court’s ruling in this case?	The Supreme Court upheld the Ombudsman’s decision, finding that all charges against Gomez for non-filing and false declarations in SALNs had prescribed.

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. 236956, November 24, 2021