Presidential Ad Hoc Fact-Finding Committee on Behest Loans v. Desierto
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The Presidential Ad Hoc Fact-Finding Committee on Behest Loans (FFCBL), created by Administrative Order No. 13 and expanded by Memorandum No. 61, investigated behest loans. A Technical Working Group (TWG) examined loan accounts, including those of Filipinas Marble Corporation (FMC). On September 1, 1997, Atty. Orlando Salvador filed a complaint with the Ombudsman for violation of Republic Act No. 3019, Sections 3(e) and (g), against respondents, alleging that FMC obtained a P4,600,000.00 loan from the Development Bank of the Philippines (DBP) on March 14, 1968, which remained unpaid and amounted to P220,143,000.00 as of June 1986. The loan was allegedly undercollateralized and FMC was undercapitalized. Procedural History: On July 7, 1998, the Ombudsman dismissed the complaint for lack of probable cause and prescription. Petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration, which was denied on August 24, 1998, for lack of merit and for being filed out of time. The Petition: Petitioners filed a special civil action for certiorari to nullify the Ombudsman's orders dismissing the complaint.
Issue(s)
Whether the loan transactions entered into in 1968 can be the basis of criminal liability considering that the complaint was filed twenty-nine (29) years after the commission of the offense; and whether there was probable cause to file the complaint. Whether the Ombudsman committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the complaint for violation of R.A. 3019.
Ruling
The petition is dismissed. The Court agrees with the Ombudsman's ruling as to lack of probable cause and finds no grave abuse of discretion.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of prescription and lack of probable cause: The Court affirmed the Ombudsman's dismissal of the complaint. The Ombudsman found that the alleged conspiracy was not supported by evidence and that the participation of respondent Reyes in the acts in question was not clear. The burden of proof rests with the prosecution, and the inherent weakness of the complainant's case is not a ground for the Ombudsman to conduct a preliminary investigation. The Ombudsman has the power to dismiss a complaint outright if it is insufficient in form or substance, or if there is no ground to continue the inquiry. The Court reiterated that it generally refrains from interfering with the Ombudsman's exercise of powers, which are endowed with a wide latitude of investigatory and prosecutory authority, to insulate the office from outside pressure and improper influence. The Court found no reason to deviate from this general rule, noting that only P1.5 million of the loan was identified as a straight loan, and even if the entire P4.6 million were a straight loan, it was not undercollateralized as FMC's rights to marble deposits valued at P211,463,048.00 were assigned to DBP. Furthermore, there was no evidence showing Pelagio Villegas, Sr. was a crony of former President Marcos. On the issue of grave abuse of discretion: Grave abuse of discretion implies a capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment equivalent to lack or excess of jurisdiction, which was not demonstrated in this case.
Main Doctrine
The Court will not interfere with the Ombudsman's exercise of his powers, including the dismissal of a complaint for lack of probable cause or prescription, absent a showing of grave abuse of discretion.