You are on page 1of 2

Romualdez v.

Marcelo 13429 by requiring the petitioner to submit his counter-


July 28, 2006 affidavit.

FACTS: ISSUE:
Petitioner is being charged with violations of Section 7 of
RA No. 3019 for failure to file his Statements of Assets and Whether the filing of the complaint with the PCGG in 1987 as
Liabilities for the period 1967-1985 during his tenure as well as the filing of the information with the Sandiganbayan to
Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary and for the initiate Criminal Case Nos. 13406-13429 in 1989 interrupted
period 1963-1966 during his tenure as Technical Assistant the running of the prescriptive period such that when the
in the Department of Foreign Affairs. Ombudsman directed petitioner to file his counter-affidavit on
The said offenses were said to be discovered by SolGen March 3, 2004, the offenses have already prescribed.
Francisco Chavez on May 8, 1987, the date when he filed a
HELD: YES.
complaint against the petitioner with the PCGG.
The preliminary investigations conducted by the PCGG over Section 11 of RA No. 3019 provides that all offenses
the 24 offenses ascribed to Romualdez (of failure to file punishable therein shall prescribe in 15 years. However, prior
annual statements of assets and liabilities) were held invalid to the amendment of Section 11 of R.A. No. 3019 by B.P. Blg.
by the court for lack of jurisdiction of said offenses. 195 which was approved on March 16, 1982, the prescriptive
The nullity of the proceedings initiated by then Solicitor period for offenses punishable under the said statute was only
General Chavez in 1987 with the PCGG and by the PCGG ten (10) years.
with the Sandiganbayan in 1989 was judicially settled. The
only proceeding that could interrupt the running of For offenses allegedly committed by the petitioner from 1962
prescription of the 1987 case is that which is filed or up to March 15, 1982, the same shall prescribe in 10 years. On
initiated by the offended party before the appropriate body the other hand, for offenses allegedly committed by the
or office. petitioner during the period from March 16, 1982 until 1985,
o The complaint was filed with the wrong body, the same shall prescribe in 15 years.
the PCGG. Thus, the same could not have
interrupted the running of the prescriptive BUT Since the petitioners were absent in the Philippines from
periods. 1986 to April 27, 2000, the respondents were saying that the
On March 3, 2004, Office of the Special Prosecutor initiated charge could not have prescribed citing Article 91 of the
the preliminary investigation of Crim Case Nos. 13406- Revised Penal Code which provides that "[t]he term of
prescription should not run when the offender is absent from
the Philippine Archipelago." the prescriptive period. Expressio unius est exclusio alterius.

This was supported by the dissent of Justice Carpio. He stated In view of the foregoing, the applicable 10-and-15-year
that Article 10 of the same Code makes Article 91 "x x x prescriptive periods in the instant case, were not interrupted by
supplementary to [special laws], unless the latter should x x x any event from the time they began to run on May 8, 1987. The
provide the contrary." Nothing in RA 3019 prohibits the offenses committed by the petitioner for the years 1963-1982
supplementary application of Article 91 to that law. Hence, prescribed 10 years from May 8, 1987 or on May 8, 1997. On
applying Article 91, the prescriptive period in Section 11 of RA the other hand, the alleged offenses committed by the petitioner
3019, before and after its amendment, should run only after for the years 1983-1985 prescribed 15 years from May 8, 1987
petitioner returned to this jurisdiction on 27 April 2000. There or on May 8, 2002.
is no gap in the law. Where the special law is silent, Article 10
of the RPC applies suppletorily. Also, when the Office of the Special Prosecutor initiated the
preliminary investigation of Criminal Case Nos. 13406-13429
HOWEVER, Court ruled that the law on prescription of on March 3, 2004 by requiring the petitioner to submit his
offenses is found in Articles 90 and 91 of the Revised Penal counter-affidavit, the alleged offenses subject therein have
Code for offenses punishable thereunder. For those penalized already prescribed.
under special laws, Act No. 3326 applies. Section 2 of Act
No. 3326 provides that the prescription shall begin to run from
the day of the commission of the violation of the law, and if the
same be not known at the time, from the discovery thereof and
the institution of judicial proceedings for its investigation and
punishment. The running of the prescriptive period shall be
interrupted when proceedings are instituted against the
guilty person, and shall begin to run again if the
proceedings are dismissed for reasons not constituting
jeopardy. Clearly, Section 2 of Act No. 3326 did not provide
that the absence of the accused from the Philippines prevents
the running of the prescriptive period. Thus, the only inference
that can be gathered from the foregoing is that the legislature,
in enacting Act No. 3326, did not consider the absence of the
accused from the Philippines as a hindrance to the running of

You might also like