Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • MELITA O. DEL ROSARIO vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

    Uploaded by

    anna
    37 views1 page
    The Supreme Court ruled that the eight-year prescriptive period for violations of the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees under Republic Act No. 6713 should be reckoned from the date of the commission of the offense, not from the date of discovery. The case involved a petitioner who failed to file her statements of assets, liabilities, and net worth for 1990 and 1991. While the lower court applied the discovery rule, the Supreme Court found that rule did not apply since the government agencies responsible for monitoring compliance with the law should have known of the petitioner's omissions within the eight-year prescriptive period starting from when the offenses were committed.

    Original Description:

    MELITA O. DEL ROSARIO vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The Supreme Court ruled that the eight-year prescriptive period for violations of the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees under Republic Act No. 6713 should be reckoned from the date of the commission of the offense, not from the date of discovery. The case involved a petitioner who failed to file her statements of assets, liabilities, and net worth for 1990 and 1991. While the lower court applied the discovery rule, the Supreme Court found that rule did not apply since the government agencies responsible for monitoring compliance with the law should have known of the petitioner's omissions within the eight-year prescriptive period starting from when the offenses were committed.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    37 views1 page

    MELITA O. DEL ROSARIO vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

    Uploaded by

    anna
    The Supreme Court ruled that the eight-year prescriptive period for violations of the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees under Republic Act No. 6713 should be reckoned from the date of the commission of the offense, not from the date of discovery. The case involved a petitioner who failed to file her statements of assets, liabilities, and net worth for 1990 and 1991. While the lower court applied the discovery rule, the Supreme Court found that rule did not apply since the government agencies responsible for monitoring compliance with the law should have known of the petitioner's omissions within the eight-year prescriptive period starting from when the offenses were committed.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    MELITA O. DEL ROSARIO vs.

    PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES


    G.R. No. 199930, June 27, 2018

    BERSAMIN, J.:

    Facts: On October 28, 2004, the Office of the Ombudsman brought a complaint
    charging the petitioner with the violation of Section 8 of R.A. No. 6713; dishonesty;
    grave misconduct; and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service for her
    failure to file her SALNs for the years 1990 and 1991. On March 11, 2008, the Office of
    the Ombudsman criminally charged the petitioner for two violations of R.A. No. 6713.
    On November 19, 2008, the petitioner filed a Motion to Quash on the ground of
    prescription of the offenses. The MeTC granted the Motion to Quash.

    However, the Sandiganbayan overturned the decision and ruled that the eight-year
    prescriptive period for violation of Section 8 of R.A. No. 6713 commenced to run from
    the discovery of the offenses.

    Issue: Whether or not the eight-year prescriptive period for violation of Republic Act No.
    6713 (Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees)
    should be reckoned from the filing of the detailed sworn statement of assets, liabilities
    and net worth (SALN), or from the discovery of the non-filing thereof.

    Ruling: The Sandiganbayan erred in applying the discovery rule to the petitioner's


    cases.

    As a general rule, prescription begins to run from the date of the commission of the
    offense especially if the necessary information based on which the crime could be
    discovered is readily available to the public. If the date of the commission of the
    violation is not known, it shall be counted form the date of discovery thereof.

    In this case, the discovery rule does not apply for the State had no reason not to be
    presumed to know of petitioner’s omissions during the eight-year period of prescription
    set in Act No. 3326. As such, the offenses could have been known within the eight-year
    period starting from the moment of their commission. Indeed, the Office of the
    Ombudsman or the CSC, the two agencies of the Government invested with the primary
    responsibility of monitoring the compliance with R.A. No. 6713, should have known of
    her omissions during the period of prescription.

    You might also like