GR 238630; (May, 2021) (Digest)
G.R. No. 238630 , May 12, 2021
THE DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE-REVENUE INTEGRITY PROTECTION SERVICE (DOF-RIPS), PETITIONER, VS. DIGNO A. ENERIO, RESPONDENT.
FACTS
The Department of Finance-Revenue Integrity Protection Service (DOF-RIPS) initiated a lifestyle check on Digno A. Enerio, an Administrative Aide IV at the Bureau of Customs. The investigation involved examining his assets, liabilities, net worth, business interests, and financial connections. DOF-RIPS secured Enerio’s Statements of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth (SALNs) for various years and verified them against documents from other government agencies. The review revealed that Enerio falsely answered his Personal Data Sheet regarding prior administrative charges, failed to file his SALN for 2005, belatedly filed his 2009 SALN, failed to declare his and his wife’s business interest in E&D Graphics, Inc. in his 1997 SALN, and failed to declare his Government Service Insurance System (GSIS) loans in several SALNs. DOF-RIPS filed a complaint before the Office of the Ombudsman. The Ombudsman found probable cause only for Falsification regarding the PDS but dismissed the charges for violations of Section 8 of Republic Act No. 6713 and Section 7 of Republic Act No. 3019 , citing prescription for some offenses and lack of criminal intent for the non-disclosure of GSIS loans. DOF-RIPS filed a motion for partial reconsideration, which was denied, prompting the filing of this Petition for Certiorari.
ISSUE
Whether or not the Office of the Ombudsman acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in finding lack of probable cause to charge respondent for violations of Section 8 of RA 6713 and Section 7 of RA 3019.
RULING
The Supreme Court ruled that the Ombudsman did not commit grave abuse of discretion. The petition was denied for lack of merit.
The Court held that the Ombudsman’s finding of lack of probable cause was not done in an arbitrary or despotic manner. On the issue of prescription, the Court affirmed that violations of RA 6713 prescribe in eight (8) years, and the period begins to run from the date of the commission of the offense (the date of filing the SALN), not from its discovery. Therefore, the offenses related to the 1997 and 2005 SALNs had prescribed. Regarding the non-disclosure of GSIS loans, the Court agreed with the Ombudsman that the mere failure to declare them does not automatically constitute a violation of Section 8 of RA 6713 or Section 7 of RA 3019. There must be a showing that the omission was done to conceal unexplained wealth or defraud the government. Since the loans were from a government institution and there was no allegation of concealment of ill-gotten wealth, no probable cause existed. The Court emphasized that the Ombudsman has wide discretion in determining probable cause, and its findings will not be overturned absent a clear showing of grave abuse of discretion, which was not present in this case.