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.