People Vs.

Sandiganbayan Case Digest

People Vs. Sandiganbayan
211 SCRA 241 G.R. No. 101724
July 3, 1992
Facts: Two letter complaints were filed with the Tanodbayan by Teofilo Gelacio on October 28,1986
and December 9, 1986, a political leader of Governor Valentina Plaza, wife of Congressman
Democrito Plaza of Agusan del Sur, shortly after private respondent had replaced Mrs. Plaza as
OIC/provincial Governor of Agusan del Sur on March 1986 The complaint questioned the issuance
to Governor Paredes, when he was still the provincial attorney in 1976 of a free patent title for a lot in
the Rosario public land subdivision in San Francisco, Agusan del Sur. He misrepresented to a Lands
Inspector of the Bureau of Lands that the lands subject herein are disposable lands, thereby
inducing said inspector to recommend approval of his application for free patent. On August 10,
1989 an information for violation of RA 3019 Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act was then filed in
the Sandiganbayan after an ex parte preliminary investigation. A motion to quash the information
was filed by the private respondent contending among others that he is charged for an offence which
has prescribed. Said motion was granted. The crime was committed on January 21, 1976, period of
prescription was 10 years, therefore it has prescribed in 1986. Now the motion to quash was being
assailed.
Issue: Whether or Not the motion to quash validly granted.
Held: Yes. RA 3019, being a special law the computation of the period for the prescription of the
crime is governed by Sec. 29 of Act No. 3326, which begins to run from the day of the commission of
the crime and not the discovery of it. Additionally, BP 195 which was approved on March 16, 1982,
amending Sec. 11 of RA 3019 by increasing ten to fifteen years of the period for the prescription or
extinguishment of a violation of RA 3019 may not be given retroactive application to the crime which
was committed by Paredes, as it is prejudicial to the accused. To apply BP 195 to Paredes would
make it an ex post facto law1 for it would alter his situation to his disadvantage by making him
criminally liable for a crime that had already been extinguished under the law existing when it was
committed