Filing a Complaint with the Ombudsman Suspends the Prescriptive Period for Graft Charges

G.R. No. 112584, May 23, 1997

Imagine a public official accused of corruption. The wheels of justice turn slowly, and years pass. Can they still be charged if too much time has passed since the alleged crime? This case clarifies when the clock stops ticking on the prescriptive period for graft charges, specifically when a complaint is filed with the Ombudsman.

Introduction

The fight against corruption is a cornerstone of a just society. However, the law also recognizes the right of the accused to a timely resolution of charges. The principle of prescription dictates that after a certain period, criminal charges can no longer be filed. This case of Domingo Ingco, Ernesto Magboo and Herminio Alcasid vs. Sandiganbayan delves into the critical question of when the filing of a complaint interrupts this prescriptive period, particularly in cases involving public officials and the Ombudsman.

Domingo Ingco, along with Ernesto Magboo and Herminio Alcasid, were charged with violating the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. The central issue revolved around whether the filing of a complaint with the Ombudsman suspended the running of the prescriptive period, preventing the charges from being time-barred.

Legal Context: Prescription and the Anti-Graft Law

The concept of prescription in criminal law is based on the principle that the state’s right to prosecute an offense expires after a certain period. This period varies depending on the severity of the crime. For violations of Republic Act No. 3019, the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, the original prescriptive period was 10 years, later amended to 15 years by Batas Pambansa Blg. 195.

Section 11 of R.A. 3019 (as amended by B.P. Blg. 195) states:

“Sec. 11. Prescription of offenses. – All offenses punishable under this Act shall prescribe after fifteen years.”

The crucial question is: what action stops the prescription clock? Does it stop when a case is filed in court, or earlier, when a complaint is lodged with an investigative body like the Ombudsman? The Supreme Court has addressed this issue in several cases, establishing that filing a complaint with the proper authority for preliminary investigation suspends the prescriptive period.

For example, imagine a government employee accused of bribery. If a complaint is filed against them with the Ombudsman within the prescriptive period, the clock stops, even if the formal charges in court are filed later. If the complaint is filed after the prescription period, it will be time-barred.

Case Breakdown: Ingco vs. Sandiganbayan

The case began when Domingo Ingco, a former Vice-President of PNB, along with Ernesto Magboo and Herminio Alcasid of Cresta Monte Shipping Corporation, were accused of violating the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act in 1987. PNB filed a complaint with the Presidential Blue Ribbon Committee, which referred the matter to the Ombudsman.

Here’s a breakdown of the key events:

• 1977-1978: Alleged commission of the offense (granting of loans under disadvantageous terms).
• May 26, 1987: Complaint filed with the Presidential Blue Ribbon Committee, referred to the Ombudsman.
• July 21, 1993: Information (formal charges) filed with the Sandiganbayan.

The petitioners argued that the offense had prescribed because more than ten years had passed between the alleged commission of the offense and the filing of the information with the Sandiganbayan. The Sandiganbayan denied their motion to quash, leading to this petition before the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court quoted from Llenes vs. Dicdican to emphasize the controlling doctrine:

“Accordingly, the filing of the private respondent’s complaint for grave oral defamation against the petitioner with the Ombudsman-Visayas tolled the running of the period of prescription of the said offense.”

The Court ultimately ruled that the filing of the complaint with the Ombudsman on May 26, 1987, suspended the prescriptive period. Therefore, the filing of the information with the Sandiganbayan on July 21, 1993, was within the prescriptive period. However, the Court also addressed whether the facts alleged in the information constituted an offense.

The Court stated:

“Ingco’s role was confined to a mere evaluation and study of the loan applications and thereafter to make his report and give his recommendation to the Board of Directors. The Board certainly was under no obligation or compulsion to approve and to favorably act on the recommendation.”

Practical Implications: Protecting Public Funds and Ensuring Fair Trials

This case provides clarity on the crucial issue of prescription in graft cases. It reinforces the principle that filing a complaint with the Ombudsman suspends the running of the prescriptive period, ensuring that public officials cannot escape prosecution by delaying tactics.

However, the case also highlights the importance of ensuring that the facts alleged constitute an offense. A mere error in judgment does not automatically equate to a violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.

Key Lessons:

• Filing a complaint with the Ombudsman suspends the prescriptive period for offenses under R.A. 3019.
• Public officials cannot use delays to avoid prosecution if a complaint is filed within the prescriptive period.
• The information must clearly allege facts that constitute the elements of the offense.
• An error in judgment does not automatically constitute a violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.

For instance, a local business owner suspects a city official of accepting bribes in exchange for favorable treatment in awarding a contract. The business owner should immediately file a complaint with the Ombudsman, even if they don’t have all the evidence yet. This action will suspend the prescriptive period, allowing time for a thorough investigation.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

Q: What is the prescriptive period for violations of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act?

A: The prescriptive period is 15 years, as amended by Batas Pambansa Blg. 195.

Q: When does the prescriptive period begin to run?

A: The prescriptive period begins to run from the date of the commission of the offense.

Q: What action suspends the prescriptive period?

A: Filing a complaint with the Ombudsman or other proper authority for preliminary investigation suspends the prescriptive period.

Q: Does filing a complaint with any government agency suspend the prescriptive period?

A: No, it must be filed with an agency authorized to conduct preliminary investigations, such as the Ombudsman.

Q: What happens if the complaint is filed after the prescriptive period has expired?

A: The charges are considered time-barred, and the accused cannot be prosecuted.

Q: What are the elements of a violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. 3019?

A: The elements are: (1) accused is a public officer (or private person in conspiracy); (2) the act was committed during their official duties; (3) undue injury was caused to any party; (4) the injury was caused by unwarranted benefits; and (5) the public officer acted with manifest partiality, evident bad faith, or gross inexcusable negligence.

Q: What is the significance of this case for public officials?

A: Public officials should be aware that they cannot avoid prosecution for graft by simply delaying the process. Filing a complaint with the Ombudsman will stop the clock.

Q: What is the significance of this case for private citizens?

A: Private citizens who suspect corruption should promptly file a complaint with the Ombudsman to ensure that the alleged offenders are brought to justice.

ASG Law specializes in criminal defense and government regulation. Contact us or email hello@asglawpartners.com to schedule a consultation.