G.R. No. 236956 , November 24, 2021
DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE-REVENUE INTEGRITY PROTECTION SERVICE (DOF-RIPS), REPRESENTED BY JOEL M. APOLONIO AND AGAPITO C. GUARIN, PETITIONER, VS. OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN AND RAMIR SAUNDERS GOMEZ, SPECIAL AGENT I, BUREAU OF CUSTOMS, RESPONDENTS.

FACTS

On August 28, 2015, petitioner DOF-RIPS filed a Complaint against private respondent Ramir Saunders Gomez, a Special Agent I of the Bureau of Customs, for alleged violations of Republic Act (RA) No. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act), RA No. 6713 (Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees), and Articles 171(4) and 183 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC). The allegations included Gomez’s failure to file his Statement of Assets, Liabilities, and Net Worth (SALN) for 2003; his failure to disclose several properties (six lots in Olongapo City, a townhouse in Quezon City, a Toyota Revo, and a 9mm caliber pistol) in various SALNs from 1996 to 2013; and filing two inconsistent SALNs in 2006 with false declarations regarding a Toyota Vios and housing loans. Gomez, in his defense, attributed the errors to his bookkeeper, denied ownership of some properties, claimed some assets were sold or lost, and asserted he had no knowledge of the alleged inconsistencies. The Office of the Ombudsman, in a Resolution dated June 23, 2017, found probable cause and directed the filing of three Informations for Perjury and three for Falsification against Gomez. Both parties filed Motions for Reconsideration, which were denied by the Ombudsman in an Order dated October 20, 2017. DOF-RIPS then filed a Petition for Certiorari, arguing the Ombudsman committed grave abuse of discretion by ruling that the prescriptive period had lapsed for Gomez’s non-filing of his 2003 SALN and for the false entries in his SALNs for 1996, 2004, 2005, and 2006. DOF-RIPS sought to modify the Ombudsman’s issuances to include additional charges.

ISSUE

Whether the Office of the Ombudsman acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in ruling that the offenses pertaining to private respondent Gomez’s non-filing of his 2003 SALN and his willful and deliberate false assertions in his SALNs for 1996, 2004, 2005, and 2006 had already prescribed when the Complaint was filed.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the Petition, finding it bereft of merit. The Court held that the Office of the Ombudsman did not commit grave abuse of discretion.
1. On the non-filing of the 2003 SALN: The Court affirmed the Ombudsman’s finding that the applicable law for the offense of non-filing of a SALN is RA No. 6713 , not RA No. 3019 . Section 16 of RA No. 6713 provides that all inconsistent laws are deemed repealed or modified, unless they provide for a heavier penalty. Since RA No. 6713 , enacted in 1989, imposes a heavier penalty for non-filing of SALN (imprisonment not exceeding five years, or a fine not exceeding P5,000, or both, under Section 11) compared to RA No. 3019 (imprisonment not exceeding one year, or a fine not exceeding P1,000, or both, under Section 9), it repealed the pertinent provisions of RA No. 3019 on this specific offense. Violations of RA No. 6713 prescribe in eight (8) years. As the Complaint was filed in 2015, more than eight years after the 2003 SALN was due, the charge had prescribed.
2. On the false entries in the SALNs: The Court upheld the Ombudsman’s ruling that the crimes of Perjury (Article 183, RPC) and Falsification (Article 171, RPC) based on the false SALN entries for the years 1996, 2004, 2005, and 2006 had also prescribed. These crimes prescribe in ten (10) years from their commission. The Ombudsman correctly held that the prescriptive period began to run from the date each SALN was filed, not from the date of discovery of the falsity (which was in 2014/2015). Since the Complaint was filed in 2015, the charges for these years, filed more than ten years after the respective SALNs were submitted, had prescribed.
The Court emphasized that the determination of probable cause and the assessment of evidence, including the issue of prescription, are within the discretion of the Ombudsman. Absent a clear showing of grave abuse of discretion, which was not present in this case, the Court will not interfere with the Ombudsman’s findings.