REPRESENTED BY ORLANDO S. SALVADOR, VS. OMBUDSMAN ANIANO A.

Ruling

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is hereby recommended that this case be DISMISSED, as it is hereby dismissed. SO RESOLVED. Manila, Philippines, August 14, 1998. EVANGELINE GRAFIL Graft Investigation Officer I x x x x x x x x x Approved ANIANO A. DESIERTO Ombudsman [9] Hence, this petition. [10] Verily, the lapse of twenty four (24) years since the time the loan was granted in 1974 was well beyond the fifteen-year prescriptive period prescribed in R. A. No. 3019. [11] The law on prescription of offenses is found in Articles 90 and 91 of the Revised Penal Code for offenses punishable thereunder. For those penalized under special laws, Act No. 3326 applies. Act No. 3326, Section 2 governs the commencement of prescription of any act in violation of R. A. No. 3019, to wit: "Sec. 2. 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." Recent jurisprudence tells us: x x x it was well-nigh impossible for the State, the aggrieved party, to have known the violations of R. A. No. 3019 at the time the questioned transactions were made because, as alleged, the public officials concerned connived or conspired with the beneficiaries of the loans. Thus, we agree with the COMMITTEE that the prescriptive period for the offenses with which the respondents in OMB-0-96-0968 were charged should be computed from the discovery of the commission thereof and not from the day of such commission. "The assertion by the OMBUDSMAN that the phrase if the same be not known in Section 2 of Act No. 3326 does not mean lack of knowledge but that the crime is not reasonably knowable is unacceptable, as it provides an interpretation that defeats or negates the intent of the law, which is written in a clear and unambiguous language and thus provides no room for interpretation but only application." [12] Hence, prescription has not set in. Under Republic Act No. 6770, [13] the Ombudsman has the power to investigate and prosecute any act or omission of a public officer or employee when such act or omission appears to be illegal, unjust, improper or inefficient. [14] In fact, the Ombudsman has the power to dismiss a complaint without going through a preliminary investigation [15] as provided in Administrative Order No. 07 of the Office of the Ombudsman, otherwise known as the Rules of Procedure of the Office of the Ombudsman. [16] It has been the consistent ruling of the Supreme Court not to interfere with the Ombudsmans exercise of his investigatory and prosecutory powers. [17] In Alba v. Nitorreda, [18] we held that it is beyond the ambit of this Court to review the exercise of di