This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2008-04-23 |
REYES, R.T., J. |
||||
| In cases involving violations of R.A. No. 3019 committed prior to the February 1986 EDSA Revolution that ousted President Ferdinand E. Marcos, we ruled that the government as the aggrieved party could not have known of the violations at the time the questioned transactions were made. Moreover, no person would have dared to question the legality of those transactions. Thus, the counting of the prescriptive period commenced from the date of discovery of the offense in 1992 after an exhaustive investigation by the Presidential Ad Hoc Committee on Behest Loans.[24] (Underscoring supplied) The Court has applied the same doctrine in recent cases[25] involving the PCGG and the Ombudsman. | |||||
|
2008-04-23 |
REYES, R.T., J. |
||||
| Based on the foregoing, the 10-year prescriptive period should be reckoned from the date of the discovery of the offense.[26] In the case under review, the violation should be deemed discovered on June 14, 1996, date of filing of the complaint with respondent Ombudsman after an exhaustive investigation by petitioner Committee.[27] It is now settled that the filing of such complaint for preliminary investigation tolls the running of the prescriptive period,[28] hence, there is no legal obstacle in filing the corresponding information in Court. | |||||
|
2008-03-14 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| The constitutional proscription of ex post facto laws is aimed against the retrospectivity of penal laws. Penal laws are acts of the legislature which prohibit certain acts and establish penalties for their violations; or those that define crimes, treat of their nature, and provide for their punishment.[14] | |||||