GR 165510; (July, 2006) (Digest)
G.R. Nos. 165510-33 ; July 28, 2006
BENJAMIN (“KOKOY”) T. ROMUALDEZ, petitioner, vs. HON. SIMEON V. MARCELO, in his official capacity as the Ombudsman, and PRESIDENTIAL COMMISSION ON GOOD GOVERNMENT, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Benjamin Romualdez sought reconsideration of a decision dismissing his petition, which challenged the Ombudsman’s authority to file new informations against him for violating the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. The Ombudsman had recommended filing 24 informations after the Sandiganbayan previously dismissed earlier cases (Criminal Case Nos. 13406-13429) in 2004. That prior dismissal was based on the Supreme Court’s ruling in Romualdez v. Sandiganbayan, which annulled the Sandiganbayan’s orders because the original informations were filed by an unauthorized officer, rendering them void. The petitioner argued that the Ombudsman could not revive these dismissed cases and that the offenses had already prescribed, warranting the dismissal of the subsequently filed cases.
ISSUE
The core issues were: (1) whether the Ombudsman’s preliminary investigation was valid despite the prior dismissal of the cases, and (2) whether the offenses charged had prescribed, barring further prosecution.
RULING
The Supreme Court granted the motion for reconsideration and ordered the dismissal of all pending criminal cases on the ground of prescription. On the first issue, the Court clarified that the Ombudsman’s new preliminary investigation was valid. The prior dismissal of the void informations did not constitute an acquittal or a termination that would bar a new prosecution under Section 6, Rule 117 of the Rules of Court. Since the earlier dismissal was due to a defect in the authority of the filing officer—not on the merits or grounds like extinction of criminal liability—the State was not precluded from filing new, valid informations after a proper investigation.
On the pivotal issue of prescription, the Court held that the offenses had indeed prescribed. The prescriptive periods for violations of R.A. No. 3019 are 10 or 15 years, depending on the penalty. The period commenced on May 8, 1987, when the PCGG filed the complaint. The Court rejected the respondents’ arguments that the filing of the void informations in 1989 or the petitioner’s absence from the Philippines interrupted the prescriptive period. Following the principle in Romualdez v. Sandiganbayan, a void information is a legal nullity and cannot toll prescription. Furthermore, Act No. 3326 , the law governing prescription for special offenses, does not provide for interruption due of the offender’s absence, unlike the Revised Penal Code. Consequently, the 10-year offenses prescribed by May 8, 1997, and the 15-year offenses by May 8, 2002. Since the Ombudsman initiated a new preliminary investigation only in March 2004, the State had lost its right to prosecute.