DOF-RIPS v. Ombudsman and Ramir Saunders Gomez [G.R. No. 236956, November 24, 2021]

 CASE DIGEST

Department of Finance-Revenue Integrity Protection Service (DOF-RIPS) v.

Office of the Ombudsman and Ramir Saunders Gomez

G.R. No. 236956, November 24, 2021

THIRD DIVISION, ROSARIO, R.

 

SALN Filing Duty; Prescription of Special Penal Laws; Perjury and Falsification; Reckoning of Discovery; Rule 65 Review of the Ombudsman

 

Non-filing of a SALN is prosecuted under Section 8 of R.A. No. 6713, which amended the inconsistent Section 7 of R.A. No. 3019; the offense prescribes in eight years under Act No. 3326. For SALN-based perjury and falsification, prescription runs from the filing of the SALN. Rule 65 does not permit the Court to substitute its judgment for the Ombudsman's; disagreement is not grave abuse of discretion.

 

On 28 August 2015, the Department of Finance-Revenue Integrity Protection Service (DOF-RIPS) filed a complaint against Ramir Saunders Gomez, Special Agent I of the Bureau of Customs. It alleged that Gomez filed no 2003 SALN at all, and that he omitted or misdeclared assets in several others — six lots in Old Cabalan, Olongapo City, a Quezon City townhouse, a vehicle and a firearm — besides inconsistent 2006 SALNs stating false acquisition costs. 

In its Resolution dated 23 June 2017, the Ombudsman found probable cause for three counts of perjury under Article 183 and three counts of falsification under Article 171 of the Revised Penal Code, but treated the non-filing of the 2003 SALN and the charges arising from the 1996, 2004, 2005 and 2006 SALNs as already prescribed. Both parties moved for reconsideration and both motions were denied in the Order dated 20 October 2017. DOF-RIPS came to the Supreme Court on certiorari under Rule 65, seeking to revive the prescribed charges.

 

 

Whether the Office of the Ombudsman gravely abused its discretion in holding that the non-filing of the 2003 SALN and the falsification and perjury charges arising from the older SALNs had already prescribed. 

NO. The petition was denied. Section 8 of R.A. No. 6713 mandates all public officials and employees to file their SALN under oath, and the Court held that “Section 7 of RA No. 3019 was amended by Section 8 of RA No. 6713” because “the penalties imposed by RA No. 6713 are undeniably heavier.” R.A. No. 6713 being a special law that fixes no period, Section 1(c) of Act No. 3326 supplies one: violation of Section 8 prescribes in eight years. Gomez’s 2003 SALN fell due in 2004 and the complaint was filed “almost 13 years after said omission,” so that charge was long dead. 

On the older perjury and falsification charges, the Court reckoned discovery from the filing of each SALN, not from the agency’s later lifestyle check. Perjury under Article 183 prescribes in ten years, and “once the SALN is filed, it is subject to review by the proper authorities. It is during the conduct of the review that errors or inaccuracies in the SALN may be determined.” Where the undeclared properties were covered by registered titles, the rule that “registration in a public registry is a notice to the whole world” applied: the record is constructive notice of its contents. Prescription for the omissions in the 1996, 2004, 2005 and 2006 SALNs therefore began in 1997, 2005, 2006 and 2007 respectively. 

On the remedial question, the Court will not disturb the Ombudsman’s finding on probable cause absent grave abuse of discretion, which exists only where the act is done in “a capricious or whimsical exercise of judgment as is equivalent to lack of jurisdiction” and is “so patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of a positive duty.” DOF-RIPS showed only disagreement with a defensible application of settled prescription rules, which is not grave abuse.

 

WHEREFORE, the petition was DENIED and the Ombudsman’s Resolution dated 23 June 2017 and Order dated 20 October 2017 were AFFIRMED. Leonen (Chairperson), Carandang, Zalameda and Marquez, JJ., concurred.

 

Full Text: lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2021/nov2021/gr_236956_2021.html