Scribd
Upload
43 views2 pages

Romualdez VS Marcelo

crimo4

Uploaded by

NA Nanorac JD
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
43 views2 pages

Romualdez VS Marcelo

crimo4

Uploaded by

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

ROMUALDEZ VS MARCELO, ET AL.

G.R. NOS. 165510-33

FACTS:

In 1987, a complaint against ROMUALDEZ for violations of Section 7 of R.A. 3019 for
failure to file his Statements of Assets and Liabilities for the period 1967-1985 during his tenure
as Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiaty and for the period 1963-1966 during his tenure
as Technical Assistant in the Department of Foreign Affairs, was filed with the PCGG which
resulted in the filing against him of 23 informations for the said offense with the Sandiganbayan
in 1989.

The Supreme Court, acting upon petition filed by ROMUALDEZ, annulled and set aside
the order of the Sandiganbayan denying his Motion to Quash, ruling that the informations were
filed by an unauthorized party and the defect cannot be cured even by conducting another
preliminary investigation. It was further decreed that an invalid information is no information at
all and cannot be the basis for criminal proceedings.

In 2004, the Office of the Special Prosecutor initiated the preliminary investigation for
the same violation which resulted to the filing of 23 informations against him. ROMUALDEZ
invoked the defense of prescription of offenses to which the Office of the Ombudsman argued
that the filing of the complaint with the PCGG in 1987 and the filing of the information with the
Sandiganbayan in 1989 interrupted the prescriptive period, and that the absence of the petitioner
from the Philippines from 1986 until 2000 also interrupted the prescription based on Article 91
of the RPC.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the offenses have already prescribed.

HELD:

Yes. According to Section 2 of Act No. 3326 which governs the computation of
prescription of offenses defined and penalized under special laws, “Prescription shall begin to
run from the day of the commission of the violation of the law, and if the same be not known at
the time, from the discovery thereof and the institution of judicial proceedings for its
investigation and punishment. The prescription shall be interrupted when proceedings are
instituted against the guilty person, and shall begin to run again if the proceedings are dismissed
for reasons not constituting jeopardy.”

The filing of the complaint against him by the Solicitor General on May 8, 1987 with the
PCGG, is a nullity as it was done so with the wrong body. Thus, the same could not have
interrupted the running of prescriptive periods. Nonetheless such filing of the complaint was
considered as the reckoning point of the discovery of ROMUALDEZ’s offenses. Prior to the
amendment of Section 11 of R.A. 3019 which was approved on March 16, 1982, the prescriptive
period for offenses punishable under the said statute was only ten (10) years. With the enactment
of B.P. 195, the prescriptive period was increased to fifteen (15) years. Thus, for offenses
ROMUALDEZ allegedly committed from 1962 up to March 15, 1982, the same prescribed on
May 8, 1987. On the other hand, for offenses he allegedly committed during the period from
March 16, 1982, until 1985, the same prescribed on May 8, 2002.

That ROMUALDEZ was absent from the Philippines from 1986 to April 27, 2000, could
also have not interrupted the prescriptive periods as the suppletory application of the RPC to
special laws pursuant to Article 10 thereof finds relevance only when the applicable special law
is silent on a particular matter. Section 2 of Act No. 3326 did not provide that the absence of the
accused from the Philippines prevents the running of the prescriptive period. It can only be
interpreted to mean that it did not intend such an interruption of the prescription unlike the
explicit mandate of Article 91 of the RPC. Expressio unius est exclusio alterius.

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