In People v. Lee, the Supreme Court clarified that filing a complaint with the prosecutor’s office interrupts the period for prescription in cases involving special laws like the Anti-Sexual Harassment Act. This means the government can still prosecute an accused person even if the information is filed in court after the prescriptive period, as long as the initial complaint was filed with the prosecutor within that period. This decision protects victims by ensuring that preliminary investigations don’t cause them to lose their right to seek justice due to prescription.

Accusations of Harassment: Does Filing with the Ombudsman Halt the Clock?

The case revolves around Mateo A. Lee, Jr., who was charged with violating Republic Act No. 7877, also known as the Anti-Sexual Harassment Act of 1995. The Information filed against Lee alleged that he committed acts of sexual harassment against Diane Jane M. Paguirigan, an Administrative Aide VI under his supervision, between February 14, 2013, and March 20, 2014. The Information was filed with the Sandiganbayan on March 21, 2017. Lee argued that the case should be dismissed because the offense had already prescribed, relying on the three-year prescriptive period for violations of R.A. No. 7877. The Sandiganbayan initially agreed with Lee, leading to the present appeal by the People of the Philippines.

The central issue before the Supreme Court was whether the filing of the Affidavit-Complaint with the Office of the Ombudsman on April 1, 2014, interrupted the running of the prescriptive period. The resolution of this issue hinged on the interpretation of Act 3326, the law governing the prescription of offenses penalized by special laws. The petitioner argued that the Sandiganbayan erred in relying on the Jadewell case, which concerned a violation of a city ordinance, and insisted that the Pangilinan case, involving a violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 (B.P. 22), a special law, should apply. The Pangilinan case held that the filing of the complaint with the prosecutor’s office interrupts the prescription period. The respondent, on the other hand, contended that the petition lacked a clear statement of material dates and that the verification and certification against forum shopping were defective.

The Supreme Court found the petition meritorious and reversed the Sandiganbayan’s decision. The Court emphasized the importance of understanding the nature of prescription, distinguishing between prescription of crimes and prescription of penalties. For offenses under the Revised Penal Code (RPC), Articles 90 and 91 govern the prescription of crimes, outlining different prescriptive periods based on the severity of the penalty. However, for violations penalized by special acts and municipal ordinances, Act 3326 applies. Section 2 of Act 3326 states that prescription begins to run from the day of the commission of the violation, or from the discovery thereof if it was not known at the time. Crucially, it also provides that “[t]he prescription 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.”

The Court referred to the landmark case of Panaguiton, Jr. v. Department of Justice, which clarified when prescription of a special law starts to run and when it is tolled. The Supreme Court noted that the prevailing jurisprudence at the time Act 3326 was enacted considered the filing of the complaint before the justice of peace for preliminary investigation as sufficient to toll the period of prescription. Panaguiton also cited cases subsequently decided by the Supreme Court involving prescription of special laws, where it was categorically ruled that the prescriptive period is interrupted by the institution of proceedings for preliminary investigation against the accused. This perspective was further cemented in People v. Pangilinan.

In People v. Pangilinan, the Court explicitly stated that “[t]here is no more distinction between cases under the RPC and those covered by special laws with respect to the interruption of the period of prescription.” The Court reiterated that the period of prescription is interrupted by the filing of the complaint before the fiscal’s office for purposes of preliminary investigation against the accused. This ruling was crucial in the Lee case. The Court determined that the filing of the complaint against Lee with the Office of the Ombudsman on April 1, 2014, effectively tolled the running of the period of prescription. Therefore, the filing of the Information before the Sandiganbayan on March 21, 2017, for unlawful acts allegedly committed between February 14, 2013, and March 20, 2014, fell well within the three-year prescriptive period of R.A. No. 7877.

The Supreme Court dismissed the Sandiganbayan’s reliance on Jadewell v. Judge Nelson Lidua, Sr., noting that Jadewell involved the prescriptive period for violation of a city ordinance, while Lee, Pangilinan, and other related cases involved the prescription of actions pertaining to violation of a special law. The Court pointed out that Jadewell did not abandon the doctrine in Pangilinan, as the former even acknowledged existing jurisprudence which holds that the filing of a complaint with the Office of the City Prosecutor tolls the running of the prescriptive period.

Addressing the procedural issues raised by the respondent, the Court acknowledged the defects in the certification against forum shopping and the verification. However, the Court emphasized the need to relax the requirements imposed by the Rule, citing the paramount importance of resolving the substantive issue in the case. The Court reasoned that the dismissal of the complaint against the respondent based on prescription was a result of the court a quo’s erroneous interpretation of the ruling in Jadewell, and that correcting this error was essential to prevent a travesty of justice. The Supreme Court reiterated that procedural rules should be faithfully followed and dutifully enforced, but their application should not amount to placing the administration of justice in a straight jacket.

The Supreme Court also laid out guidelines regarding non-compliance with the requirements for or submission of a defective verification and certification against forum shopping, stating:

1) A distinction must be made between non-compliance with the requirement on or submission of defective verification, and non-compliance with the requirement on or submission of defective certification against forum shopping.

2) As to verification, non-compliance therewith or a defect therein does not necessarily render the pleading fatally defective. The court may order its submission or correction or act on the pleading if the attending circumstances are such that strict compliance with the Rule may be dispensed with in order that the ends of justice may be served thereby.

3) Verification is deemed substantially complied with when one who has ample knowledge to swear to the truth of the allegations in the complaint or petition signs the verification, and when matters alleged in the petition have been made in good faith or are true and correct.

4) As to certification against forum shopping, non-compliance therewith or a defect therein, unlike in verification, is generally not curable by its subsequent submission or correction thereof, unless there is a need to relax the Rule on the ground of “substantial compliance” or presence of “special circumstances or compelling reasons.”

5) The certification against forum shopping must be signed by all the plaintiffs or petitioners in a case; otherwise, those who did not sign will be dropped as parties to the case. Under reasonable or justifiable circumstances, however, as when all the plaintiffs or petitioners share a common interest and invoke a common cause of action or defense, the signature of only one of them in the certification against forum shopping substantially complies with the Rule.

6) Finally, the certification against forum shopping must be executed by the party-pleader, not by his counsel. If, however, for reasonable or justifiable reasons, the party-pleader is unable to sign, he must execute a Special Power of Attorney designating his counsel of record to sign on his behalf.

The Supreme Court, in conclusion, highlighted that aggrieved parties should not suffer due to circumstances beyond their control, such as delays in investigations. It emphasized the principle that it is unjust to deprive the injured party of the right to obtain vindication on account of delays that are not under his control. The Court reiterated that the only thing the offended party must do to initiate the prosecution of the offender is to file the requisite complaint.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether the filing of a complaint with the Office of the Ombudsman interrupts the prescriptive period for offenses under special laws, specifically the Anti-Sexual Harassment Act. The court needed to clarify if the filing of the initial complaint tolled the statute of limitations.
What is the Anti-Sexual Harassment Act of 1995?	The Anti-Sexual Harassment Act of 1995 (R.A. No. 7877) is a special law that defines and penalizes sexual harassment in employment, education, and training environments. This law aims to protect individuals from unwanted sexual advances and create a safe working and learning environment.
What does it mean for a crime to prescribe?	For a crime to prescribe means that the State loses its right to prosecute an act prohibited and punished by law due to the passage of time. After the prescriptive period has lapsed, the accused can no longer be charged or tried for the crime.
What is the prescriptive period for violations of R.A. No. 7877?	The prescriptive period for violations of R.A. No. 7877, the Anti-Sexual Harassment Act, is three (3) years. This means that a complaint or information must be filed within three years from the date the offense was committed or discovered.
Why did the Sandiganbayan initially dismiss the case?	The Sandiganbayan initially dismissed the case based on the understanding that the prescriptive period had lapsed. It believed that the three-year period should be counted until the filing of the Information in court, and since that was beyond three years from the alleged act, the case was prescribed.
What was the Supreme Court’s ruling?	The Supreme Court reversed the Sandiganbayan’s decision, ruling that the filing of the Affidavit-Complaint with the Office of the Ombudsman interrupted the running of the prescriptive period. Thus, the filing of the Information before the Sandiganbayan was within the prescriptive period.
How does this ruling affect future cases?	This ruling clarifies that for special laws, the filing of a complaint with the appropriate prosecutor’s office (like the Ombudsman) tolls the prescriptive period. It means that as long as the initial complaint is filed within the prescriptive period, subsequent delays in filing the Information in court will not result in prescription.
What is the difference between prescription under the Revised Penal Code and special laws?	While the Revised Penal Code (RPC) and special laws like R.A. 7877 both have prescription periods, the key difference lies in when the period is interrupted. Under the RPC, the prescriptive period is interrupted by the filing of the complaint or information in court, while under special laws, it’s interrupted by the filing of the complaint with the prosecutor’s office for preliminary investigation.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s decision in People v. Lee reinforces the principle that the filing of a complaint with the prosecutor’s office interrupts the prescriptive period for offenses under special laws. This ruling ensures that victims of offenses like sexual harassment are not prejudiced by delays in the preliminary investigation process. It aligns legal procedure with the pursuit of justice and equity.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: People v. Lee, G.R. No. 234618, September 16, 2019