GMA Brandtalk
Tracking
Archives
Filtered By: Topstories
News
High court dismisses 23 graft cases vs Imelda Marcos brother
The Supreme Court on Friday dismissed 23 graft cases against Benjamin “Kokoy" Romualdez, younger brother of former First Lady Imelda Marcos, citing a legal technicality -- the 15-year prescriptive period for the Office of the Ombudsman to prosecute the cases had lapsed. In ruling in favor of Romualdez, the Supreme Court said the prescriptive period to prosecute the cases was not interrupted by the absence of Romualdez in the country from 1986 to 2000. 
Romualdez was among relatives, cronies and close associates of late dictator Ferdinand Marcos who fled the Philippines when the strongman was ousted from power in the 1986 EDSA “people power" uprising. The criminal graft cases were filed before the Sandiganbayan and the Manila regional trial court. They stemmed from Romualdez's alleged failure to file his statements of assets and liabilities from 1963 to 1985, during his tenure as Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary, and for the period 1963-1966 during his tenure as Technical Assistant in the Department of Foreign Affairs. Romualdez served under the regime of his brother-in-law, the late strongman Marcos. Lone dissenting vote In a 20-page resolution penned by Associate Justice Consuelo Ynares-Santiago, the Supreme Court’s First Division granted Romualdez’s motion for reconsideration and reversed its Sept. 23, 2005 resolution, which affirmed the filing of 23 complaints. The high court noted that Section 11 of Republic Act 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act) provides that all offenses punishable therein shall be deemed prescribed in 15 years. Justices Leonardo A. Quisumbing and Adolfo S. Azcuna concurred with the decision penned by Justice Ynares-Santiago. Justice Antonio T. Carpio was the lone dissenting vote. In his separate opinion, Carpio said the offenses charged against Romualdez could not have prescribed because the latter was absent from the Philippines from 1986 to April 27, 2000 and thus the prescriptive period did not run from the time of discovery in 1986. Carpio cited Article 91 of the Revised Penal Code which states that, "the term of prescription should not run when the offender is absent from the Philippine Archipelago." He averred that the ruling in effect allows an accused to evade prosecution by simply flying overseas, away from the jurisdiction of the courts. This, Carpio added, "unjustifiably tilts the balance of criminal justice in favor of the accused to the detriment of the State’s ability to investigate and prosecute crimes." "In this age of cheap and accessible global travel," Carpio wrote, "this Court should not encourage individuals facing investigation or prosecution for violation of special laws to leave Philippine jurisdiction to sit-out abroad the prescriptive period." State lost right to prosecute The court ruled that the prescriptive period of Romualdez’s offenses began to run from the discovery of the offense in 1987 when the PCGG filed the cases. But the majority opinion noted that Section 2 of RA 3326, An Act to Establish Periods of Prescription for Violations Penalized by Special Acts and Municipal Ordinances and to Provide When Prescription Shall Begin To Run, states that “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." Thus, the court said, "Romualdez’s alleged offenses had already prescribed when the Office of the Special Prosecutor initiated the preliminary investigation in 2004 by requiring the former to submit counter-affidavit. “Indeed, the State has lost its right to prosecute Romualdez for the offenses pending before the Sandiganbayan and the Regional Trial Court of Manila," the court ruled. Court records show that the complaint against Romualdez was filed by former Solicitor General Francisco Chavez before the Presidential Commission on Good Government on May 8, 1987. The PCGG filed the case before the Sandiganbayan in 1989, but the Office of the Ombudsman required Romualdez to file his counter-affidavit only on March 3, 2004, when he returned to the country. No proceedings started However, the tribunal noted that before March 3, 2004, "there is no such proceedings instituted against the petitioner to warrant the tolling of the prescriptive periods of the offenses charged against him." The Court said that Section 2 of RA 3326 is conspicuously silent as to whether the absence of the offender from the Philippines bars the running of the prescriptive period. It stressed that “the silence of the law can only be interpreted to mean that Sec. 2 did not intend such an interruption of the prescription unlike the explicit mandate of Article 91." Under Section 2, the court stressed that the prescriptive period shall be interrupted only “when proceedings are instituted against the guilty person." -GMANews.TV
Romualdez was among relatives, cronies and close associates of late dictator Ferdinand Marcos who fled the Philippines when the strongman was ousted from power in the 1986 EDSA “people power" uprising. The criminal graft cases were filed before the Sandiganbayan and the Manila regional trial court. They stemmed from Romualdez's alleged failure to file his statements of assets and liabilities from 1963 to 1985, during his tenure as Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary, and for the period 1963-1966 during his tenure as Technical Assistant in the Department of Foreign Affairs. Romualdez served under the regime of his brother-in-law, the late strongman Marcos. Lone dissenting vote In a 20-page resolution penned by Associate Justice Consuelo Ynares-Santiago, the Supreme Court’s First Division granted Romualdez’s motion for reconsideration and reversed its Sept. 23, 2005 resolution, which affirmed the filing of 23 complaints. The high court noted that Section 11 of Republic Act 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act) provides that all offenses punishable therein shall be deemed prescribed in 15 years. Justices Leonardo A. Quisumbing and Adolfo S. Azcuna concurred with the decision penned by Justice Ynares-Santiago. Justice Antonio T. Carpio was the lone dissenting vote. In his separate opinion, Carpio said the offenses charged against Romualdez could not have prescribed because the latter was absent from the Philippines from 1986 to April 27, 2000 and thus the prescriptive period did not run from the time of discovery in 1986. Carpio cited Article 91 of the Revised Penal Code which states that, "the term of prescription should not run when the offender is absent from the Philippine Archipelago." He averred that the ruling in effect allows an accused to evade prosecution by simply flying overseas, away from the jurisdiction of the courts. This, Carpio added, "unjustifiably tilts the balance of criminal justice in favor of the accused to the detriment of the State’s ability to investigate and prosecute crimes." "In this age of cheap and accessible global travel," Carpio wrote, "this Court should not encourage individuals facing investigation or prosecution for violation of special laws to leave Philippine jurisdiction to sit-out abroad the prescriptive period." State lost right to prosecute The court ruled that the prescriptive period of Romualdez’s offenses began to run from the discovery of the offense in 1987 when the PCGG filed the cases. But the majority opinion noted that Section 2 of RA 3326, An Act to Establish Periods of Prescription for Violations Penalized by Special Acts and Municipal Ordinances and to Provide When Prescription Shall Begin To Run, states that “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." Thus, the court said, "Romualdez’s alleged offenses had already prescribed when the Office of the Special Prosecutor initiated the preliminary investigation in 2004 by requiring the former to submit counter-affidavit. “Indeed, the State has lost its right to prosecute Romualdez for the offenses pending before the Sandiganbayan and the Regional Trial Court of Manila," the court ruled. Court records show that the complaint against Romualdez was filed by former Solicitor General Francisco Chavez before the Presidential Commission on Good Government on May 8, 1987. The PCGG filed the case before the Sandiganbayan in 1989, but the Office of the Ombudsman required Romualdez to file his counter-affidavit only on March 3, 2004, when he returned to the country. No proceedings started However, the tribunal noted that before March 3, 2004, "there is no such proceedings instituted against the petitioner to warrant the tolling of the prescriptive periods of the offenses charged against him." The Court said that Section 2 of RA 3326 is conspicuously silent as to whether the absence of the offender from the Philippines bars the running of the prescriptive period. It stressed that “the silence of the law can only be interpreted to mean that Sec. 2 did not intend such an interruption of the prescription unlike the explicit mandate of Article 91." Under Section 2, the court stressed that the prescriptive period shall be interrupted only “when proceedings are instituted against the guilty person." -GMANews.TV 
