G.R. No. 199930 . June 27, 2018.
MELITA O. DEL ROSARIO, PETITIONER, V. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.

FACTS

Petitioner Melita O. Del Rosario, a public official, was criminally charged in 2008 before the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) for violating Section 8 of Republic Act No. 6713 (Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees). The Informations alleged she willfully failed to file her sworn Statement of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth (SALN) for the calendar years 1990 and 1991, which the law required to be filed on or before April 30 of the following year. Del Rosario moved to quash the charges on the ground of prescription, arguing the eight-year prescriptive period under Act No. 3326 had lapsed, as the alleged offenses were committed in 1991 and 1992. The MeTC and the Regional Trial Court (RTC) granted the motion, ruling prescription began from the date of the violation.
The Sandiganbayan reversed the RTC. It held that the prescriptive period should commence from the discovery of the omission, not from the date of the violation itself. The State, through the Office of the Ombudsman, argued that the failure to file a SALN is a concealed crime, difficult to discover on the exact filing deadline. The petitioner sought review, contending the reckoning point should be the date the SALN was due.

ISSUE

Whether the eight-year prescriptive period for violation of R.A. No. 6713 for non-filing of a SALN commences from the date the SALN was due or from the discovery of the omission.

RULING

The Supreme Court ruled that the prescriptive period commences from the date of the discovery of the violation. The Court applied Act No. 3326 , Section 2 of which states that prescription shall begin to run from the day of the commission of the violation, “or if the same be not known at the time, from the discovery thereof.” The offense of non-filing is inherently concealed. Unlike a positive act, an omission or nonfeasance is not readily apparent. The government agency tasked with monitoring compliance cannot be expected to instantly know of a public officer’s failure to submit a required document on the very day it is due. The Court distinguished this case from violations under R.A. No. 3019 , which has its own specific prescriptive period. For violations of R.A. No. 6713 , which is silent on prescription, the general rule in Act No. 3326 applies. The Court cited analogous jurisprudence where prescription for failure to register employees with the SSS began from discovery, as the offense was continuing in nature and capable of concealment. Therefore, the Sandiganbayan correctly held that the period began to run from the discovery of the non-filing, not from April 30 of the year following the calendar year covered by the SALN. The informations filed in 2008 were thus not barred by prescription.