GR 238660; (February, 2021) (Digest)
G.R. No. 238660 , February 03, 2021
Department of Finance – Revenue Integrity Protection Service, Petitioner, vs. Office of the Ombudsman and Clemente Del Rosario Germar, Respondents.
FACTS
Private respondent Clemente del Rosario Germar was a security guard of the Bureau of Customs from April 1, 1979, until his resignation on October 16, 2015. Petitioner DOF-RIPS conducted a lifestyle check on him, comparing his Statements of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth (SALNs) from 2002-2014 with documents from various government agencies. The check revealed he failed to declare in his SALNs several real properties registered in his name and one property (TCT No. T-376098) he donated to his daughter in 2015. It was also found that he answered “NO” in his 2014 Personal Data Sheet to the question of whether he had ever been formally charged, despite a criminal information for robbery having been filed against him (which was later provisionally dismissed). The DOF-RIPS filed a complaint before the Office of the Ombudsman for violations of Section 7 of RA 3019, Section 8 of RA 6713, and Articles 171 (Falsification) and 183 (Perjury) of the Revised Penal Code. The Ombudsman found probable cause to charge Germar with violation of RA 6713 for the years 2008-2015 and with Perjury under Article 183 for the years 2006-2015 (for the SALN non-disclosures) and for the 2014 PDS entry. However, it dismissed the charges for violation of RA 6713 for the years 2002-2007 and for Perjury for the years 2002-2005 due to prescription, and also dismissed the charge for Falsification under Article 171. The DOF-RIPS filed a Petition for Certiorari, arguing the Ombudsman gravely abused its discretion in these dismissals.
ISSUE
1. Whether the Ombudsman gravely abused its discretion in ruling there was no probable cause to charge private respondent with Falsification under Article 171(4) of the RPC.
2. Whether the Ombudsman gravely abused its discretion in ruling that the charges for violation of RA 6713 for the years 2002-2007 had prescribed.
3. Whether the Ombudsman gravely abused its discretion in ruling that the charges for Perjury under Article 183 of the RPC for the years 2002-2005 had prescribed.
RULING
1. No. The Court affirmed the Ombudsman’s dismissal of the Falsification charge, albeit on a different ground. The elements of Falsification by a public officer under Article 171(4) are: (a) the offender is a public officer; (b) he takes advantage of his official position; and (c) he falsifies a document by making untruthful statements in a narration of facts. The Court found the second element, “taking advantage of his official position,” was patently lacking. There was no showing that Germar, as a security guard, had the duty to make, prepare, or intervene in the preparation of the SALNs, or that he used his position to facilitate the commission of the falsification. Mere possession of a SALN, by itself, does not satisfy this element.
2. No. The Court upheld the Ombudsman’s finding that the charges for violation of Section 8 of RA 6713 for the years 2002-2007 had prescribed. Violations of RA 6713 prescribe in eight (8) years. The complaint was filed in May 2016. Therefore, violations committed in 2002-2007 (more than eight years prior to 2016) had prescribed. The prescriptive period for these offenses commenced from the day the SALNs were filed.
3. No. The Court upheld the Ombudsman’s finding that the charges for Perjury under Article 183 of the RPC for the years 2002-2005 had prescribed. The penalty for Perjury under Article 183 is arresto mayor in its maximum period to prision correccional in its minimum period, which are correctional penalties. Under Article 90 of the Revised Penal Code, crimes punishable by correctional penalties prescribe in ten (10) years. However, those punishable specifically by arresto mayor prescribe in five (5) years. Since the prescribed penalty for Perjury includes arresto mayor, the five-year prescriptive period applies. The complaint was filed in May 2016. Therefore, the alleged Perjury committed in the 2002-2005 SALNs (filed in 2003-2006, respectively) had prescribed, as more than five years had elapsed from the time of their filing. The prescriptive period was not interrupted by the lifestyle check, as an investigation alone does not interrupt the period; only the filing of a judicial complaint or information does.