Ingco v. Sandiganbayan
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioners Domingo Ingco (former Vice-President of PNB), Ernesto Magboo (Chairman of Cresta Monte Shipping Corporation), and Herminio Alcasid (President of Cresta Monte) were charged with violation of Republic Act No. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act) before the Sandiganbayan. The charge stemmed from two loan accommodations extended by PNB to Cresta Monte Shipping Corporation in 1977 and 1978, amounting to US$5.91 million and US$7.5 million, respectively. PNB alleged that Ingco conspired with Magboo and Alcasid in approving these loans despite deficient collaterals, lack of feasibility studies, adverse credit ratings, and an illusory guarantee from NIDC (a PNB subsidiary). It was further alleged that the loans were granted under manifestly and grossly disadvantageous terms and conditions, causing undue injury to the Government. Procedural History: A complaint was filed with the Presidential Blue Ribbon Committee on May 26, 1987, which was referred to the Office of the Ombudsman. The Committee on Behest Loans under the Office of the Special Prosecutor made factual findings. An information was filed with the Sandiganbayan on July 21, 1993. Petitioners moved to quash the information, arguing that the facts alleged did not constitute an offense and that the offense had prescribed. The Sandiganbayan denied the motion to quash on October 7, 1993, and denied the motion for reconsideration on November 8, 1993. The Petition: Petitioners filed a civil action of certiorari and prohibition with the Supreme Court, seeking to nullify the Sandiganbayan's resolutions.
Issue(s)
Whether the offense charged has prescribed. Whether the facts alleged in the information constitute an offense under Section 3(e) in relation to Section 3(g) of R.A. No. 3019.
Ruling
The petition is GRANTED. The resolutions of the Sandiganbayan dated October 7, 1993, and November 8, 1993, are SET ASIDE.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of prescription: The Court affirmed the Sandiganbayan's holding that the offense has not prescribed. Although more than ten years had elapsed from the alleged commission of the offense (September 22, 1977, and March 27, 1978) to the filing of the information (July 21, 1993), the applicable 10-year prescriptive period was effectively suspended by the filing of the complaint with the Ombudsman on May 26, 1987. The Court reiterated the settled rule that the filing of a complaint with the fiscal's office or the Ombudsman for preliminary investigation purposes tolls the running of the prescriptive period, citing Llenes vs. Dicdican and Francisco vs. Court of Appeals. On the issue of whether the facts constitute an offense: The Court found that the facts alleged in the information did not constitute an offense under Section 3(e) in relation to Section 3(g) of R.A. No. 3019. The information alleged that petitioner Ingco, as Sr. Vice-President of PNB, recommended the approval of the loans despite alleged deficiencies. However, the Court emphasized that Ingco, as a bank official, neither had the title nor the authority to conclude and bind the bank to the questioned transactions. PNB's affairs were directed by its Board of Directors, and its President had the power to execute contracts. Ingco's role was limited to evaluation and recommendation. The Court held that a mere error of judgment in appreciating a loan application, to which all public officials are susceptible, does not constitute the crime contemplated in Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019. Furthermore, petitioners Magboo and Alcasid, being private individuals, could not be prosecuted under the said provisions independently of Ingco.
Main Doctrine
A mere recommendation for loan approval by a bank official, even if based on a flawed assessment, does not automatically constitute a violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 if the official lacks the authority to conclude the transaction and the ultimate decision rests with the Board of Directors. Furthermore, the filing of a complaint with the Ombudsman for preliminary investigation tolls the prescriptive period for offenses under R.A. No. 3019.