. Hi.
TWENTIETH CONGRESS OF THE ) 
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES ) 
First Regular Session 
)
25 JUL17 P3:49
SENATE
s. No. 691
Ri;C£i‘. r.u L
Introduced by Senator MANUEL "UTO" M. LAPID
AN ACT
AMENDING SECTION 2 OF ACT NO. 3326, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS "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"
EXPLANATORY NOTE
In the 2006 case of Romualdez v. Marceld, the Supreme Court identified a "legislative 
gap" as the root cause of then Senior Associate Justice Antonio T. Carpio's "apprehension" 
that the application of Section 2 of Act No. 3326 to the computation of the prescriptive period 
of offenses punished under special laws would be "[t]o allow an accused to prevent his 
prosecution by simply leaving this jurisdiction." This, according to Justice Carpio:
...[Ujnjustifiably 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, 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. The majority opinion 
unfortunately choses to lay basis for such anomalous practice.2
In the said 2006 Resolution, the Court dismissed the 23 criminal cases filed against 
Benjamin T. Romualdez for violation of Section 7 of Republic Act No. 3019, otherwise known
1 G.R. Nos. 165510-33, July 28, 2006
2 Id.


as the "Anti-Graft and Corruption Practices Act", in connection with this supposed receipt of 
dual compensation in government during the regime of his brother-in-law, the late former 
President Ferdinand Marcos3.
The Supreme Court reversed its earlier decision by ruling that the graft charges against 
the accused have been extinguished by prescription, despite the fact that the accused was 
admittedly absent from the Philippines from 1986 to April 27, 2000. The majority opinion cited 
Act No. 3326 to hold that the prescriptive period of offenses punished under special laws is 
only interrupted "when proceedings are instituted against the guilty person,"4 and not by the 
absence of the accused from Philippine jurisdiction, which is a ground instead for the tolling 
of the prescriptive period under the second paragraph of Article 91 of Act No. 3815, or the 
Revised Penal Code (RPC).
Relying on the RPC provision. Justice Carpio dissented, reasoning that the 
aforementioned second paragraph of Article 91 of the RPC suppletorily applies to R.A. No. 
3019 by application of Article 10 thereof.
Addressing this point, the prevailing majority in the Supreme Court ruled that the RPC 
provision cannot be given such suppletory effect because, by application of Section 2 of Act 
No. 3326, R.A. No. 3019, a special law, is not silent on the particular matter of the running of 
the prescriptive period for the offenses defined and punished therein.5
In addressing Justice Carpio's above-quoted apprehensions, the Supreme Court, in 
effect, stated that the remedy to resolve such issue lies with the legislature and not the courts:
The majority notes Mr. Justice Carpio's reservations about the 
effects of ruling that the absence of the accused from the Philippines 
shall not suspend the running of the prescriptive period. Our duty, 
however, is only to interpret the law. To go beyond that and to 
question the wisdom or effects of the law is certainly beyond our 
constitutionally mandated duty. As we have already explained -
Even on the assumption that there is in fact a legislative gap 
caused by such an omission, neither could the Court presume 
otherwise and supply the details thereof, because a legislative lacuna
3 Philippine Star. (01 May 2009). Supreme Court reverses ruling, clears Kokoy of graft. Retrieved from 
https://www.philstar.eom/headlines/2009/05/01/462665/supreme-court-reverses-ruling-clears-kokoy-graft
4 Second paragraph of Section 2, Act No. 3326
5 Under Section 3 thereof and for purposes of said law, “special acts shall be acts defining and penalizing 
violations of the law not included in the Penal Code”.


cannot be filled by judicial fiat. Indeed, courts may not, in the guise 
of interpretation, enlarge the scope of a statute and include therein 
situations not provided nor intended by the lawmakers. An omission 
at the time of the enactment, whether careless or calculated, cannot 
be judicially supplied however after later wisdom may recommend 
the inclusion. Courts are not authorized to insert into the law what 
they think should be in it or to supply what they think the legislature 
would have supplied if its attention has been called to the omission.
6(Emphasis supplied).
This measure, therefore, seeks to address this so-called legislative lacuna by amending 
Act No. 3326 and aligning it with the second paragraph of Article 91 of the RPC. For violations 
penalized by special laws, absence of the accused in the Philippines will henceforth be a 
ground for tolling of the prescriptive period.
In view of the foregoing, passage of this bill is earnestly sought.
lANUEL "LITO" M.
Senator
'Id


TWENTIETH CONGRESS OF THE ) 
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES ) 
First Regular Session 
)
SENATE
s. No. 691
25 JUL17 P3:49 
A
lU
Introduced by Senator Manuel "Lito" M. Lapid
1 
AN ACT
2 
AMENDING SECTION 2 OF ACT NO. 3326, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS "AN
3 
ACT TO ESTABLISH PERIODS OF PRESCRIPTION FOR VIOLATIONS
4 
PENALIZED BY SPECIAL ACTS AND MUNICIPAL ORDINANCES AND TO
5 
PROVIDE WHEN PRESCRIPTION SHALL BEGIN TO RUN"
Be it enacted by the Senate and the House of Representatives of die Philippines 
in Congress assembled:
6 
Section. 1. Section 2 of Act No. 3326, othenwise known as "An Act to Establish Periods
7 
of Prescription for Violations Penalized by Special Acts and Municipal Ordinances and to
8 
Provide when Prescription shall Begin to Run", is hereby amended to read as follows:
9 
"Sec. 2. Prescription shall begin to run from the day of the
10 
commission of the violation of the law, and if the same be not known
11 
at the time, from the discovery thereof and the institution of judicial
12 
proceeding for its investigation and punishment.
13 
The prescription shall be interrupted when proceedings are
14 
instituted against the guilty person, and shall begin to run again if the
15 
proceedings are dismissed for reasons not constituting jeopardy.
16 
THE PERIOD OF PRESCRIPTION SHALL NOT RUN WHEN THE
17 
OFFENDER IS ABSENT FROM THE PHILIPPINE TERRITORY."
18 
Sec. 2. Separability Clause. - If any provision of this Act is declared invalid or
19 
unconstitutional, the provisions not affected thereby shall continue to be in full force and
20 
effect.


1 
Sec. 3. Repealing Clause. - All laws, executive orders, presidential decrees, presidential
2 
proclamations, letters of instruction, rules and regulations or parts thereof inconsistent with
3 
the provisions of this Act are hereby repealed, modified, or amended accordingly.
4 
Sec. 4. Effectivity. - This Act shall take effect fifteen (15) days following its publication
5 
in the Official Gazette or in two (2) newspapers of general circulation in the Philippines.
6 
Approved,