Presidential Commission on Good Government v. Desierto
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG), represented by Atty. Orlando Salvador, filed a complaint with the Office of the Ombudsman against the Board of Directors of Philippine National Bank (PNB) and Development Bank of the Philippines (DBP), and Rodolfo Cuenca of Basay Mining Corporation (BMC), for violation of Section 3 (e and g) of Republic Act No. 3019. The complaint alleged that in 1977, BMC (then CDCP Mining Corporation) obtained a loan from PNB amounting to US$60 million (P480 million) through PNB Board Resolution No. 446, with a collateral of P350 million and a capital of P83,803,629.00. By 1982, the loan ballooned to P993,840,000.00 with a collateral value of P424,240,000.00. An additional P20 million loan was obtained, purportedly through a marginal note from then President Ferdinand E. Marcos, and further loans were released by DBP. Procedural History: The respondents failed to submit responsive pleadings before the Ombudsman. Graft Investigation Officer Melinda S. Diaz-Salcedo recommended the dismissal of the case, which was approved by Ombudsman Aniano A. Desierto. The Ombudsman also denied PCGG's motion for reconsideration. The Petition: PCGG filed a petition for certiorari before the Supreme Court, alleging that the Ombudsman committed grave abuse of discretion in holding that the loan was not undercollateralized, the borrower was not undercapitalized, there were no direct endorsements or marginal notes from high government officials, and that the offenses had already prescribed.
Issue(s)
Whether the petition for certiorari was filed late. Whether the offenses charged have already prescribed. Whether the Ombudsman committed grave abuse of discretion in holding that the loan was not undercollateralized, the borrower was not undercapitalized, and there were no direct endorsements or marginal notes from high government officials, thus not qualifying as a behest loan.
Ruling
The petition for certiorari is DISMISSED. The Court considered the petition timely filed due to the retroactive application of A.M. No. 00-2-03-SC. The Court found no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the Ombudsman. The issue of prescription was settled in a previous case, and the Ombudsman's findings on the nature of the loan were supported by evidence.
Ratio Decidendi
On the timeliness of the petition: Although the petition was filed beyond the original prescriptive period under Section 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, the Court considered it timely filed due to the retroactive application of A.M. No. 00-2-03-SC, which provides for a sixty (60) day period from notice of denial of a motion for reconsideration. The petitioner received notice of denial on August 6, 1999, and the petition was posted on October 5, 1999, falling within the new 60-day period. On the issue of prescription: The Court reiterated its ruling in Presidential Ad-Hoc Fact Finding Committee on Behest Loans vs. Hon. Aniano Desierto, where it held that the prescriptive period for offenses under R.A. No. 3019 should be computed from the discovery of the commission of the offense, not from the date of commission, especially when public officials connived with the beneficiaries. The Court found the Ombudsman's interpretation that 'if the same be not known' means 'is not reasonably knowable' unacceptable as it defeats the intent of the law. On the nature of the loan and grave abuse of discretion: The Court found the disquisition of Graft Investigation Officer Diaz-Salcedo, approved by Ombudsman Desierto, to be exhaustive and well-reasoned. The investigation revealed that the loans were foreign loans obtained from Marubeni Corporation, with PNB extending an accommodation or guarantee in the form of Stand-By Letters of Credit. The loans were not undercollateralized, as the collateral and capital, along with the mortgage of all assets and assignment of mining rights and equipment, far exceeded the actual outstanding loan balance. The Court also noted that the additional P20 million loan was released to prevent the bankruptcy of CDCP and subsequent losses to PNB, and that the presence of a marginal note from President Marcos, without other criteria for a behest loan, did not automatically qualify it as such. Therefore, the Ombudsman did not commit grave abuse of discretion.
Main Doctrine
The prescriptive period for offenses under R.A. No. 3019 should be computed from the discovery of the commission of the offense, not from the date of commission, especially when public officials connived with beneficiaries. The Court will not interfere with the Ombudsman's investigatory and prosecutory powers absent compelling reason.