Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 267 views

    Crim Case

    Uploaded by

    Jemson Ivan Walcien
    This case discusses whether charges of violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act against Petitioner have prescribed. The Ombudsman argues prescription was interrupted by the filing of a complaint in 1987 and criminal charges in 1989. However, the Court ruled that under Act No. 3326, which governs prescription periods for special laws like the Anti-Graft Act, the running of the prescriptive period is not interrupted by the accused's absence from the Philippines. The Court found the Ombudsman failed to show prescription was interrupted according to Act No. 3326, so the charges had prescribed.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Crim Case

    Uploaded by

    Jemson Ivan Walcien
    267 views2 pages
    This case discusses whether charges of violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act against Petitioner have prescribed. The Ombudsman argues prescription was interrupted by the filing of a complaint in 1987 and criminal charges in 1989. However, the Court ruled that under Act No. 3326, which governs prescription periods for special laws like the Anti-Graft Act, the running of the prescriptive period is not interrupted by the accused's absence from the Philippines. The Court found the Ombudsman failed to show prescription was interrupted according to Act No. 3326, so the charges had prescribed.

    Original Description:

    Case Digest

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This case discusses whether charges of violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act against Petitioner have prescribed. The Ombudsman argues prescription was interrupted by the filing of a complaint in 1987 and criminal charges in 1989. However, the Court ruled that under Act No. 3326, which governs prescription periods for special laws like the Anti-Graft Act, the running of the prescriptive period is not interrupted by the accused's absence from the Philippines. The Court found the Ombudsman failed to show prescription was interrupted according to Act No. 3326, so the charges had prescribed.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    267 views2 pages

    Crim Case

    Uploaded by

    Jemson Ivan Walcien
    This case discusses whether charges of violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act against Petitioner have prescribed. The Ombudsman argues prescription was interrupted by the filing of a complaint in 1987 and criminal charges in 1989. However, the Court ruled that under Act No. 3326, which governs prescription periods for special laws like the Anti-Graft Act, the running of the prescriptive period is not interrupted by the accused's absence from the Philippines. The Court found the Ombudsman failed to show prescription was interrupted according to Act No. 3326, so the charges had prescribed.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    Romualdez v.

    Marcelo

    G.R. Nos. 165510-33 July 28, 2006

    Facts:
    Petitioner claims that the Office of the Ombudsman gravely abused its discretion in
    recommending the filing of 24 informations against him for violation of Section 7 of Republic Act
    (RA) No. 3019 or the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act; that the Ombudsman cannot revive
    the aforementioned cases which were previously dismissed by the Sandiganbayan in its
    Resolution of February 10, 2004; that the defense of prescription may be raised even for the first
    time on appeal and thus there is no necessity for the presentation of evidence thereon before the
    court a quo. Thus, this Court may accordingly dismiss Criminal Case Nos. 28031-28049 pending
    before the Sandiganbayan and Criminal Case Nos. 04-23185704-231860 pending before the
    Regional Trial Court of Manila, all on the ground of prescription.

    In its Comment, the Ombudsman argues that the dismissal of the informations in Criminal Case
    Nos. 13406-13429 does not mean that petitioner was thereafter exempt from criminal prosecution;
    that new information may be filed by the Ombudsman should it find probable cause in the conduct
    of its preliminary investigation; that the filing of the complaint with the Presidential Commission
    on Good Government (PCGG) in 1987 and the filing of the information with the Sandiganbayan
    in 1989 interrupted the prescriptive period; that the absence of the petitioner from the Philippines
    from 1986 until 2000 also interrupted the aforesaid period based on Article 91 of the Revised
    Penal Code.

    For its part, the PCGG avers in its Comment that, in accordance with the 1987 Constitution and
    RA No. 6770 or the Ombudsman Act of 1989, the Omdudsman need not wait for a new complaint
    with a new docket number for it to conduct a preliminary investigation on the alleged offenses of
    the petitioner; that considering that both RA No. 3019 and Act No. 3326 or the Act To Establish
    Periods of Prescription For Violations Penalized By Special Acts and Municipal Ordinances and
    to Provide When Prescription Shall Begin To Run, are silent as to whether prescription should
    begin to run when the offender is absent from the Philippines, the Revised Penal Code, which
    answers the same in the negative, should be applied.
    Issue:
    Whether the offenses for which petitioner are being charged have already prescribed.
    Ruling:
    We held in the case of Domingo v. Sandiganbayan that in resolving the issue of prescription of
    the offense charged, the following should be considered: (1) the period of prescription for the
    offense charged; (2) the time the period of prescription starts to run; and (3) the time the
    prescriptive period was
    interrupted.
    Section 2 of Act No. 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. The running
    of the prescriptive period 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. Clearly, Section 2 of Act No. 3326 did not provide that the absence of the accused from
    the Philippines prevents the running of the prescriptive period. Thus, the only inference that can
    be gathered from the foregoing is that the legislature, in enacting Act No. 3326, did not consider
    the absence of the accused from the Philippines as a hindrance to the running of the prescriptive
    period. Expressio unius est exclusio alterius.

    You might also like