G.R. No. 238510. July 14, 2021
DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE – REVENUE INTEGRITY PROTECTION SERVICE (DOF – RIPS), REPRESENTED BY REYNALITO L. LAZARO AND JESUS S. BUENO, PETITIONER, VS. OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN AND EVELYN RODRIGUEZ RAMIREZ, RESPONDENTS.

FACTS

The Department of Finance Revenue Integrity Protection Service (DOF-RIPS) filed a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 assailing the Office of the Ombudsman’s Joint Resolution and Joint Order concerning Evelyn Rodriguez Ramirez, a Revenue Officer at the Bureau of Internal Revenue. The case stemmed from a lifestyle check initiated after DOF-RIPS received a complaint alleging Ramirez engaged in extortion. The investigation revealed that from 2000 to 2013, Ramirez failed to declare or inaccurately declared numerous assets and liabilities in her Statements of Assets, Liabilities, and Net Worth (SALNs). The undisclosed or misdeclared assets included real properties (e.g., houses, lots, agricultural lands), motor vehicles (e.g., Honda Civic, Ford Escape, Mitsubishi Montero Sport, Toyota Fortuner), a business investment, and income payments. Liabilities from real estate and chattel mortgages were also underdeclared or omitted. DOF-RIPS filed complaints against Ramirez for violation of Section 8 of Republic Act No. 6713 (Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards), forfeiture of ill-gotten wealth, perjury, and falsification under Article 171(4) of the Revised Penal Code. The Ombudsman’s Joint Resolution found probable cause for some counts of violation of R.A. No. 6713 but dismissed the charges for falsification and others. The Joint Order denied the motions for reconsideration filed by both parties.

ISSUE

1. Whether the Office of the Ombudsman committed grave abuse of discretion in finding no probable cause to indict Ramirez for falsification of public documents under Article 171(4) of the Revised Penal Code.
2. Whether the Office of the Ombudsman committed grave abuse of discretion in finding that the offenses for violation of Section 8 of R.A. No. 6713 had prescribed.

RULING

The Supreme Court DISMISSED the petition. The Court found no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the Ombudsman.
1. On the Falsification Charge: The Court upheld the Ombudsman’s finding of no probable cause for falsification under Article 171(4). For liability to attach under this provision, a public officer must have taken advantage of their official position, meaning there must be a particular privity between their office and the document falsified, such that the falsification was made possible by the unique opportunities or competencies of that office. A SALN is a document required of all public officers regardless of their specific functions; its preparation is not intimately related to the unique powers of a particular position like that of a Revenue Officer. Therefore, Ramirez’s alleged false entries in her SALN did not constitute the abuse of official position contemplated by Article 171(4).
2. On Prescription: The Court affirmed that the offenses for violation of Section 8 of R.A. No. 6713, pertaining to the non-filing or defective filing of SALNs, had prescribed. Under the law’s implementing rules, the prescribed period for filing administrative complaints is one year from the date of the act or omission complained of. For SALN-related violations, the one-year prescriptive period begins to run from the due date of filing the SALN (April 30 of the year following the year subject of the statement). The complaints against Ramirez were filed on November 28, 2014. Consequently, violations pertaining to SALNs due on or before April 30, 2013, had already prescribed. The Ombudsman correctly limited its finding of probable cause to violations within the prescriptive period (specifically, the 2013 SALN).
The Court reiterated the policy of non-interference with the Ombudsman’s exercise of its investigatory and prosecutorial powers, absent a clear showing of grave abuse of discretion, which was not present in this case.