G.R. No. 135119 - PRESIDENTIAL COMMISSION ON GOOD GOVERNMENT (REPRESENTED BY DANILO R.V. DANIEL), VS. THE HONORABLE OMBUDSMAN ANIANO A. DESIERTO, ALICIA LL. REYES, DON M. FERRY, PLACIDO MAPA, MR. AND MRS. PEDRO GARCIA, SR., AND SANTIAGO DUMLAO, JR..D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

Accordingly, on September 15, 1997, the Committee filed with the Office of the Ombudsman a criminal complaint for violation of Section 3(a) and (g) of Republic Act No. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act) [4] against spouses Garcia, Santiago Dumlao, Jr., Alicia Ll. Reyes, Don M. Ferry, and Placido Mapa, docketed as OMB Case No. 0-97-1740. The Ombudsman dismissed OMB Case No. 0-97-1740 by reason of prescription. Section 11 of Republic Act No. 3019 provides that all offenses punishable under this Act shall prescribe in ten years. [5] The Ombudsman held that the transactions made the bases of the complaint occurred between 1976 to 1980, while the complaint was filed only on September 15, 1997, or after the lapse of more than ten (10) years. Since the entire series of transactions were made through duly recorded public instruments, then following People vs. Dinsay, [6] and People vs. Sandiganbayan , [7] the period of prescription should commence to run from the time of the commission of the offense. Hence, the instant petition anchored on the following grounds: I PUBLIC RESPONDENT OMBUDSMAN COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION AND/OR ACTED IN EXCESS OF JURISDICTION IN HOLDING THAT THERE WAS NO CAUSE TO PROCEED AGAINST ANY OF THE RESPONDENTS. II PUBLIC RESPONDENT OMBUDSMAN COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION AND/OR ACTED IN EXCESS OF JURISDICTION IN HOLDING THAT THE OFFENSE HAD ALREADY PRESCRIBED. The threshold issue before us is whether the Ombudsman committed grave abuse of discretion in ruling that the offense leveled against the said respondents has prescribed. Petitioner PCGG argues that the applicable rule on prescription in this case is Article 91 [8] of the Revised Penal Code which, pursuant to Article 10 [9] of the same Code, is suppletory to special laws, such as Republic Act No. 3019. Under Article 91, the period of prescription shall commence to run from the day the crime is discovered by the offended party. Petitioner draws our attention to the wording of Section 11 of Republic Act No. 3019 that All offenses punishable under this Act shall prescribe in fifteen years, without stating when the prescriptive period shall commence to run. Considering the provision of Article 91 of the Revised Penal Code and Section 11 of Republic Act No. 3019, the prescriptive period should commence to run only from the date of discovery of the offense, not from the time of its commission . Since behest loans necessarily implies concealment, only a careful and diligent search and scrutiny of such questionable transactions could lead to their discovery. The Committee discovered the existence of the behest loans on September 8, 1997. Petitioner filed with the Office of the Ombudsman the complaint for violation of Republic Act 3019 against the said respondents on September 15, 1997, hence, well within the reglementary period provided by the same law. For his part, the Ombudsman contends that Article 91 of the Revised Penal Code does not apply to the i