PRESIDENTIAL COMMISSION ON GOOD GOVERNMENT [PCGG], REPRESENTED BY ORLANDO L. SALVADOR, VS. HON. ANIANO DESIERTO, OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, ARROCEROS, MANILA, ALICIA L. REYES, PAGCOR, ROXAS BLVD., PASAY CITY, LEONIDES S. VIRATA, 172 MEDACEON, 2

Ruling

accordingly filed a complaint with the Office of the Ombudsman for violation of Section 3, paragraphs (e) and (g), of Republic Act ("R.A.") No. 3019. The complaint was dismissed, inter alia, on the ground of lack of prima facie case against respondents and for the prescription of the offense. The subsequent motion for reconsideration proved to be unavailing; hence, the petition for certiorari . Petitioner asseverates that the right of the Republic to recover behest loans or ill-gotten wealth may not be barred by prescription on the following grounds: (1) It is imprescriptible under Article XI, Section 15, of the 1987 Constitution; (2) prescription does not run in favor of a trustee to the prejudice of the beneficiary; and (3) the crime for which respondents have been indicted is a continuing crime. Petitioner argues that even if the offense were barred by prescription, it could not have been availed of, the same not having been priorly raised by way of a defense. The petition to this Court was dismissed on 25 November 1999 for having been filed out of time. Petitioner received on 07 July 1999 copies of the memorandum and the resolution dismissing the complaint. Its motion for reconsideration was filed on 12 July 1999 . It received a copy of the resolution denying the motion for reconsideration on 31 August 1999 . The instant petition was filed only on 29 October 1999 or three (3) days beyond the 60-day reglementary period. [1] Meanwhile and pending petitioner's motion for reconsideration, A.M. No. 00-2-03-SC (Further Amending Section 4, Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules on Civil Procedure), made effective on 01 September 2000, was promulgated. The amendatory Circular provides: SEC. 4. When and where petition filed. -- The petition shall be filed not later than sixty (60) days from notice of judgment, order or resolution. In case a motion for reconsideration or new trial is timely filed, whether such motion is required or not, the sixty (60) day period shall be counted from notice of the denial of said motion. Statutes regulating procedure of the courts will be construed as applicable to actions pending and undetermined at the time of their passage. In that context and to that extent procedural laws are retroactive. [2] The instant petition should now, therefore, be considered timely filed. On the substance of the case, petitioner assails the dismissal by the Ombudsman of the criminal charges filed against private respondents, under Section 3, paragraphs (e) and (g), of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act (R.A. 3019), for two reasons: (1) lack of palpable merit or basis in the charges against respondents to proceed with the preliminary investigation; and (2) prescription of the charges. [3] The applicable provisions of law on prescription of offenses are found in Article 90 and Article 91 of the Revised Penal Code for offenses punishable thereunder and Act No. 3326 for those penalized by special laws. R. A. 3019 being a special law, the commencement