Scribd
Upload
260 views2 pages

Romualdez Vs Marcelo

The petitioner claimed that charges of violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act against him were already dismissed and cannot be revived by the Ombudsman. The Ombudsman argued that new charges can be filed if probable cause is found, and the prescriptive period was interrupted by previous filings and the petitioner's absence from the Philippines. The Presidential Commission on Good Government also commented that the Ombudsman can conduct a new preliminary investigation without a new complaint. The Supreme Court had to determine if the previous investigation was valid and if the offenses had prescribed.

Uploaded by

Vanessa C. Roa
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
260 views2 pages

Romualdez Vs Marcelo

The petitioner claimed that charges of violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act against him were already dismissed and cannot be revived by the Ombudsman. The Ombudsman argued that new charges can be filed if probable cause is found, and the prescriptive period was interrupted by previous filings and the petitioner's absence from the Philippines. The Presidential Commission on Good Government also commented that the Ombudsman can conduct a new preliminary investigation without a new complaint. The Supreme Court had to determine if the previous investigation was valid and if the offenses had prescribed.

Uploaded by

Vanessa C. Roa
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

ROMUALDEZ VS MARCELO

G.R. Nos. 166510-33

July 28, 2006

Facts:

Petitioner claims that the Office of the Ombudsman gravely abused its discretion in
recommending the filing of 24 informations against him for violation of Section 7 of Republic Act
(RA) No. 3019 or the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act; that the Ombudsman cannot revive
the aforementioned cases which were previously dismissed by the Sandiganbayan in its
Resolution of February 10, 2004; that the defense of prescription may be raised even for the first
time on appeal and thus there is no necessity for the presentation of evidence thereon before the
court a quo. Thus, this Court may accordingly dismiss Criminal Case Nos. 28031-28049 pending
before the Sandiganbayan and Criminal Case Nos. 04-231857–04-231860 pending before the
Regional Trial Court of Manila, all on the ground of prescription.

In its Comment, the Ombudsman argues that the dismissal of the informations in Criminal Case
Nos. 13406-13429 does not mean that petitioner was thereafter exempt from criminal
prosecution; that new informations may be filed by the Ombudsman should it find probable cause
in the conduct of its preliminary investigation; that the filing of the complaint with the Presidential
Commission on Good Government (PCGG) in 1987 and the filing of the information with the
Sandiganbayan in 1989 interrupted the prescriptive period; that the absence of the petitioner from
the Philippines from 1986 until 2000 also interrupted the aforesaid period based on Article 91 of
the Revised Penal Code.

For its part, the PCGG avers in its Comment that, in accordance with the 1987 Constitution and
RA No. 6770 or the Ombudsman Act of 1989, the Ombudsman need not wait for a new complaint
with a new docket number for it to conduct a preliminary investigation on the alleged offenses of
the petitioner; that considering that both RA No. 3019 and Act No. 3326 or the Act To Establish
Periods of Prescription For Violations Penalized By Special Acts and Municipal Ordinances and
to Provide When Prescription Shall Begin To Run, are silent as to whether prescription should
begin to run when the offender is absent from the Philippines, the Revised Penal Code, which
answers the same in the negative, should be applied.

Issues:

(a) Whether the preliminary investigation conducted by the Ombudsman in Criminal Case Nos.
13406-13429 was a nullity?

(b) Whether the offenses for which petitioners are being charged with have already prescribed?

Held:

Petitioner claims that the Office of the Ombudsman gravely abused its discretion in
recommending the filing of 24 informations against him for violation of Section 7 of Republic Act
(RA) No. 3019 or the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act; that the Ombudsman cannot revive
the aforementioned cases which were previously dismissed by the Sandiganbayan in its
Resolution of February 10, 2004; that the defense of prescription may be raised even for the first
time on appeal and thus there is no necessity for the presentation of evidence thereon before the
court a quo. Thus, this Court may accordingly dismiss Criminal Case Nos. 28031-28049 pending
before the Sandiganbayan and Criminal Case Nos. 04-231857–04-231860 pending before the
Regional Trial Court of Manila, all on the ground of prescription.

You might also like

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy