People vs. Lee

For violations of special penal laws, the prescriptive period is interrupted by the filing of the complaint with the prosecutor's office or investigating body for purposes of preliminary investigation.

The Office of the Special Prosecutor (OSP) of the Office of the Ombudsman charged Mateo Acuin Lee, Jr., Deputy Executive Director of the National Council on Disability Affairs, with violation of R.A. No. 7877 (Anti-Sexual Harassment Act of 1995) for demanding sexual favors from his subordinate. Prescription of crimes under special laws is governed by Act 3326, as amended, which sets a three-year prescriptive period for violations of R.A. No. 7877.

Mateo Acuin Lee, Jr., a public officer serving as Deputy Executive Director of the National Council on Disability Affairs, was charged with violation of R.A. No. 7877 before the Sandiganbayan. The Information, filed on March 21, 2017, alleged that from February 14, 2013 to March 20, 2014, Lee willfully demanded sexual favors from Diane Jane M. Paguirigan, an Administrative Aide VI under his supervision. The alleged acts included asking Paguirigan to check into a hotel, sending her flowers, food, and messages of endearment, visiting her house and church, and following her home, creating an intimidating and hostile working environment despite her protests.

Prior to the filing of the Information, an Affidavit-Complaint for sexual harassment was filed against Lee before the Office of the Ombudsman on April 1, 2014. On March 30, 2017, after the Information was filed, Lee moved for judicial determination of probable cause and prescription, which the Sandiganbayan initially denied on June 2, 2017. Lee sought reconsideration, and the Sandiganbayan reversed itself, dismissing the case on September 6, 2017, on the ground that the offense had prescribed. The OSP's motion for reconsideration was denied on October 6, 2017, prompting the present petition.

• Prescription of Special Laws: Petitioner argued that the Sandiganbayan erred in relying on Jadewell vs. Judge Nelson Lidua, Sr., which involved a city ordinance, instead of People vs. Pangilinan, which applies to special laws like R.A. No. 7877. Petitioner maintained that under prevailing jurisprudence, the filing of the complaint with the prosecutor's office or investigating body tolls the prescriptive period for violations of special penal laws.
• Timeliness of Motion for Reconsideration: Petitioner asserted that the Motion for Reconsideration before the Sandiganbayan was filed on September 18, 2017, which is within the reglementary period, as the assailed resolution could not have been received prior to its issuance on September 6, 2017.

• Procedural Defects: Respondent argued that the petition failed to clearly state the material dates of receipt of the assailed resolutions and the filing of subsequent motions. He also contended that the certification against forum shopping lacked an undertaking to inform courts of similar actions and that the signatories to the verification lacked proof of authority from the Ombudsman.

• Prescription of Offenses: Whether the filing of the complaint before the Office of the Ombudsman for preliminary investigation interrupted the prescriptive period for a violation of R.A. No. 7877.
• Procedural Compliance: Whether the procedural defects in the petition's verification and certification against forum shopping warrant its dismissal.

• Prescription of Offenses: Yes. The filing of the affidavit-complaint before the Office of the Ombudsman on April 1, 2014 effectively tolled the running of the three-year prescriptive period, making the filing of the Information on March 21, 2017 timely.
• Procedural Compliance: No. The procedural defects in the verification and certification against forum shopping do not warrant dismissal, as the substantive issue outweighs the procedural lapses, and a relaxation of the rules is warranted to prevent a travesty of justice.

• Prescription of Offenses: Prescription of violations penalized by special laws is governed by Act 3326. Under Section 2 thereof, prescription is interrupted when proceedings are instituted against the guilty person. Consistent with Panaguiton, Jr. vs. Department of Justice and People vs. Pangilinan, the institution of preliminary investigation proceedings tolls the prescriptive period. The Sandiganbayan's reliance on Jadewell was misplaced because Jadewell involved a city ordinance and did not abandon the doctrine in Pangilinan. Since the complaint was filed on April 1, 2014, and the Information was filed on March 21, 2017, for acts committed between February 14, 2013 and March 20, 2014, the filing was well within the three-year prescriptive period.
• Procedural Compliance: While procedural rules on verification and certification against forum shopping must generally be followed, courts may relax these rules under justifiable circumstances to serve the ends of justice. The dismissal of the case based on an erroneous interpretation of prescription would result in a travesty of justice. Aggrieved parties who actively pursue their claims should not suffer due to circumstances beyond their control. Thus, the substantive issue outweighs the procedural defects.

• Interruption of Prescriptive Period for Special Laws — Under Act 3326, the prescriptive period for violations of special penal laws is interrupted by the filing of the complaint with the prosecutor's office or investigating body for purposes of preliminary investigation. This aligns the treatment of special laws with the Revised Penal Code, where the filing of the complaint or information interrupts prescription.
• Liberal Application of Procedural Rules — Procedural rules are designed to facilitate the orderly administration of justice, not to subvert it. Courts may relax requirements on verification and certification against forum shopping when substantive rights are at stake and strict application would result in a travesty of justice.

• "There is no more distinction between cases under the RPC (Revised Penal Code) and those covered by special laws with respect to the interruption of the period of prescription" — This passage, quoting People vs. Pangilinan, articulates the ratio decidendi that the filing of a complaint for preliminary investigation tolls prescription for both RPC felonies and special law violations.
• "An inordinate fixation on technicalities cannot defeat the need for a full, just, and equitable litigation of claims." — This passage underscores the Court's rationale for relaxing procedural rules on verification and certification against forum shopping in favor of substantive justice.

• People vs. Pangilinan, 687 Phil. 95 (2012) — Followed. The Court relied on this case to reiterate that the filing of a complaint before the fiscal's office for preliminary investigation interrupts the prescriptive period for violations of special laws.
• Panaguiton, Jr. vs. Department of Justice, 592 Phil. 286 (2008) — Followed. The Court cited this case for the historical context and doctrine that the institution of preliminary investigation proceedings tolls prescription under Act 3326.
• Jadewell vs. Judge Nelson Lidua, Sr., 719 Phil. 1 (2013) — Distinguished. The Sandiganbayan relied on this case, but the Supreme Court found it inapplicable because it involved the prescriptive period for a city ordinance, not a special law.

• Section 2, Act 3326 (as amended by Act 3763) — Governs the prescription of violations of special laws. The Court applied this provision to hold that the prescriptive period begins to run from the day of the commission of the violation and is interrupted when proceedings are instituted against the guilty person.
• Articles 90 and 91, Revised Penal Code — Cited for contrast, governing the prescription of crimes under the RPC, where the filing of the complaint or information interrupts the prescriptive period.

Leonen, A. Reyes, Jr., and Inting, JJ., concurred. Hernando, J., on leave.