G.R. No. 189800 -

Ruling

WHEREFORE, the foregoing considered, it is respectfully recommended that the Complaint for violation of Section 3 (e) and (g) of RA 3019 filed against all respondents be dismissed . SO RESOLVED. [15] PCGG filed a Motion for Reconsideration but the same was denied by the Ombudsman in an Order [16] dated January 7, 2009. Hence, the instant Petition. The Issue For resolution is the issue on whether the Ombudsman acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in dismissing PCGG's Complaint on the ground of (a) prescription and (b) lack of probable cause. Ruling of the Court At the outset, it should be stressed that R.A. No. 3019, Section 11 [17] provides that all offenses punishable under said law shall prescribe in ten (10) years. This period was later increased to fifteen (15) years with the passage of Batas Pambansa (BP) Bilang 195, [18] which took effect on March 16, 1982. When the subject transactions took place, the period of prescription for all offenses punishable under R.A. No. 3019 was ten (10) years. As to which of the two periods should apply, the Court in People v. Pacificador [19] explained that in the prescription of crimes, the period which appears more favorable to the accused is to be adopted, viz .: It can be gleaned from the Information that the respondent Pacificador allegedly committed the crime charged on or about during the period from December 6, 1975 to January 6, 1976. Section 11 of R.A. No. 3019, as amended by B.P. Blg. 195, provides that the offenses committed under the said statute shall prescribe in fifteen (15) years. It appears however, that prior to the amendment of Section 11 of R.A. No. 3019 by B.P. Blg. 195 which was approved on March 16, 1982, the prescriptive period for offenses punishable under the said statute was only ten (10) years. The longer prescriptive period of fifteen (15) years, as provided in Section 11 of R.A. No. 3019 as amended by B.P. Blg. 195, does not apply in this case for the reason that the amendment, not being favorable to the accused (herein private respondent), cannot be given retroactive effect. Hence, the crime prescribed on January 6, 1986 or ten (10) years from January 6, 1976. [20] The loan transactions subject of this case were granted by the PNB to BISUDECO from 1977-1985. Applying this Court's pronouncement in Pacificador , the period of prescription for offenses committed prior to the passage of B.P. Blg. 195 is ten (10) years. The new 15-year period cannot be applied to acts done prior to its effectivity in 1982 because to do so would violate the prohibition against ex post facto laws. Transactions entered into and consummated prior to the effectivity of B.P. Blg. 195 on March 16, 1982 are exempt from its amendments. The new 15-year period shall only be applied to acts done after its effectivity. When does the 10-year period begin to run? While R.A. No. 3019 is silent as to when the period of prescription begins to run, R.A. No. 3326, [21] speci