Romuladez v.

Marcelo In view of the foregoing, the applicable 10-and-15-year prescriptive periods in the
instant case, were not interrupted by any event from the time they began to run on
PETITIONER: Benjamin (“KOKOY”) T. Romualdez. May 8, 1987. As a consequence, the alleged offenses committed by the petitioner for
RESPONDENTS: Hon. Simeon V. Marcelo, et al. the years 1963-1982 prescribed 10 years from May 8, 1987 or on May 8, 1997. On
the other hand, the alleged offenses committed by the petitioner for the years 1983-
SUMMARY: Romualdez failed to file his SALN for 1967-1985 and 1963-1966
during his tenure as Ambassador Extraordinary and Technical Assistant in the DFA 1985 prescribed 15 years from May 8, 1987 or on May 8, 2002.
respectively. A Complaint was filed against him by the Solicitor General with the
PCGG in 1987 and an information was filed with the Sandiganbayan in 1989 for
violating Sec. 7 of RA 3019(Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act). Romualdez filed
an MR claiming that the actions have already prescribed. Ombudsman claims that DOCTRINE:
the offense has not yet prescribed since a complaint was filed by the solicitor general 1. A proceeding interrupts the running of prescription when it is filed or initiated by
in 1987 with the PCGG, and information in Sandiganbayan and that his absence the offended party before the appropriate body or office.
from the Philippines from 1987-2000 tolled the prescriptive period. 2. Liberal Interpretation of Penal Laws in favor of the accused.
Issue: W/N the action has prescribed. YES 3. Art. 10 of the RPC on suppletory application to special laws apply when the
Under Sec. 11 of RA 3019 all offenses punishable therein shall prescribe in 15 years special law is silent on the matter.
but prior to its amendment by BP BLG. 195 on March 16, 1982 the prescriptive
period was 10 years.
For the offenses allegedly committed by Romualdez from 1962 to March 15, 1982
the same shall prescribe in 10 years since the amendment by BP BLG 195 not being
favorable to the accused cannot be given retroactive effect, while for those allegedly
committed during March 16, 1982 to 1985 the same shall prescribe in 15 years
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 until institution of judicial proceedings for its investigation and
punishment(People v. Duque)
That the prescriptive period of the offense only began to run from discovery on May
8, 1987 when the complaint was filed by former Solicitor General Francisco I.
Chavez against Romualdez with the PCGG.
The Filing of Complaint with the PCGG in 1987 and the information with the
Sandiganbayan did not interrupt the prescriptive period because the same was filed
an unauthorized party. An invalid information is no information at all and cannot be
the basis for criminal proceedings
That since Sec. 2 of Act. No. 3326 is silent as to whether the absence of an offender
from the Philippines bars the running of the prescriptive period, it could only means
that the absence of the offender does not toll the running of the prescriptive period.
The suppletory application of the RPC to special laws by virtue of At. 10 of the RPC
finds relevance only when the provisions of the special law are silent on a particular
matters but since Sec. 2 of Act 3326 provides that the 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 it means that the legislature did not
consider the absence of the accused from the Philippines as a hindrance to the
running of the prescriptive period.