Prescription of SALN Violations Under RA 6713: When the Eight-Year Period Runs

Public officials and employees in the Philippines are required by law to file their Statements of Assets, Liabilities, and Net Worth (SALN) on or before April 30 of every year. Failure to do so is a punishable offense under Republic Act No. 6713, the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees. But how long can the government wait before prosecuting a public servant who failed to file? The Supreme Court addressed this question in Del Rosario v. People (G.R. No. 199930, June 27, 2018), clarifying when the prescriptive period for SALN violations begins to run.

The Case Before the Court

Melita O. Del Rosario, a Chief of Valuation and Classification Division at the Bureau of Customs, was charged in 2008 with two counts of violating Section 8 of RA 6713 for failing to file her SALNs for the years 1990 and 1991. The required deadlines were April 30, 1991, and April 30, 1992, respectively.

Del Rosario moved to quash the informations on the ground that the offenses had already prescribed. The Metropolitan Trial Court granted her motion, and the Regional Trial Court affirmed. However, the Sandiganbayan reversed, applying the "discovery rule"—reckoning the prescriptive period from when the government discovered the omission rather than from the date of commission.

The Issue

The central question was whether the eight-year prescriptive period for violating RA 6713 should be counted from the date of the offense's commission or from its discovery by the authorities.

The Ruling

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Del Rosario, holding that the offenses had indeed prescribed. The Court reversed the Sandiganbayan and affirmed the quashal of the informations.

The General Rule: Prescription Runs from Commission

Since RA 6713 does not specify its own prescriptive period, Act No. 3326 governs. Section 1 of Act No. 3326 provides an eight-year prescriptive period for offenses punished by imprisonment of two years or more but less than six years—the penalty range for SALN violations.

Section 2 of Act No. 3326 establishes the reckoning rule: prescription begins from the day of the violation's commission, and only if the violation is not known at that time does it run from discovery. The Supreme Court emphasized that the general rule is counting from commission; the discovery rule is the exception.

When the Discovery Rule Applies

The discovery rule, also known as the "blameless ignorance" doctrine, applies only when the aggrieved party had no reasonable means of knowing the offense existed. The Court cited its guidelines from PCGG v. Carpio-Morales: if the information from which the crime could be discovered was readily available to the public, the general rule applies. If the information was suppressed—possibly through connivance or conspiracy—then the exception applies.

Why the Discovery Rule Did Not Apply Here

The Court found that Del Rosario's omissions were not concealed. Section 8(C) of RA 6713 requires SALNs to be made available for public inspection at reasonable hours. The Office of the Ombudsman and the Civil Service Commission, the agencies tasked with monitoring compliance, had issued memorandum circulars establishing systems to track SALN filings. The information was readily available, and the State had no reason not to know of the omissions within the eight-year period.

The Court also distinguished the "behest loans" cases relied upon by the Sandiganbayan. In those cases, the offenses involved concealment and conspiracy among public officials. Here, there was no concealment—just the government's inaction.

Practical Takeaways

• SALN violations prescribe after eight years under Act No. 3326, counted from the deadline for filing—not from when the government discovers the omission.
• The discovery rule is the exception, not the rule. It applies only when the offense was concealed or when the government had no reasonable means of knowing about it.
• Public access to SALNs matters. Because SALNs are public documents, the government is presumed to know of non-filings within the prescriptive period.
• Government agencies must act promptly. The Ombudsman and CSC cannot delay prosecution and then rely on the discovery rule to resurrect stale cases.
• Public officials should take filing deadlines seriously. The Court's ruling underscores that the duty to file SALNs is a continuing obligation with real consequences for non-compliance.

This article is general information and not legal advice. For your specific situation, consult a lawyer or ask ASG Legal AI.