Back

Republic of the Philippines vs. Eduardo M. Cojuangco, Jr., et al. [CONCURRING AND DISSENTING OPINION, J. BRION]

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, versus EDUARDO M. COJUANGCO, JR., JUAN PONCE ENRILE, MARIA CLARA LOBREGAT, JOSE ELEAZAR, JR., JOSE CONCEPCION, ROLANDO P. DELA CUESTA, EMMANUEL M. ALMEDA, HERMENEGILDO C. ZAYCO, NARCISO M. PINEDA, IÑAKI R. MENDEZONA, DANILO S. URSUA, TEODORO D. REGALA, VICTOR P. LAZATIN, ELEAZAR B. REYES, EDUARDO U. ESCUETA, LEO J. PALMA, DOUGLAS LU YM, SIGFREDO VELOSO and JAIME GANDIAGA, Respondents. [CONCURRING AND DISSENTING OPINION, J. BRION]

G.R. No. 139930 | 2012-06-26

CONCURRING AND DISSENTING OPINION

 

 

BRION, J.:

 

 

I concur with the majority except on the question of prescription with respect to respondent Eduardo M. Conjuangco, Jr. 

 

The primary issue in this case with respect to respondent Eduardo M. Cojuangco is on the question of whether the right of the State to prosecute the respondents for violation of Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. (RA) 3019[1] or the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act has prescribed.  Corollary to this issue are the questions -

 

a.     when the prescriptive period provided by law should begin...