Singian v. Sandiganbayan
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Atty. Orlando L. Salvador, PCGG Consultant, investigated loans granted to Integrated Shoe, Inc. (ISI) by the Philippine National Bank (PNB), including a US$2,500,000.00 letter of credit approved on January 27, 1972, and subsequent loan accommodations between February 10, 1972, and December 15, 1980. The Committee deemed these loans as potentially behest loans due to insufficient collateral and undue haste. Atty. Salvador filed a complaint with the Office of the Ombudsman on March 20, 1996, for violation of Section 3(e) and (g) of Republic Act No. 3019 against PNB and ISI officials, including petitioner Gregorio Singian, Jr. Initial recommendations for dismissal by Investigator Edgar R. Navales and Director Angel C. Mayoralgo were disapproved by Ombudsman Aniano A. Desierto. Special Prosecution Officer Florita S. Linco found probable cause to indict the petitioner and others, a recommendation approved by Director Wendell Barreras-Sulit and Special Prosecutor Leonardo P. Tamayo, but disapproved by Deputy Special Prosecutor Robert E. Kallos, before Ombudsman Desierto ultimately approved Prosecutor Linco's recommendation on October 13, 2000. Consequently, eighteen (18) Informations were filed before the Sandiganbayan against the petitioner and co-accused. Procedural History: Petitioner filed Urgent Consolidated Motions for Reinvestigation and Reduction of Bail, leading the Sandiganbayan to grant the motion for reinvestigation. Special Prosecution Officer Joselito R. Ferrer conducted this reinvestigation and recommended exoneration for the petitioner and others, but this recommendation was disapproved by Ombudsman Simeon V. Marcelo. Subsequently, the petitioner filed a Motion for Re-determination of Existence of Probable Cause with the Sandiganbayan, which was denied in a Resolution dated August 18, 2003, and his subsequent motion for reconsideration was also denied on October 24, 2003. The Petition: Petitioner filed a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, assailing the Sandiganbayan's resolutions denying his motions. He alleges that these resolutions were issued with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.
Issue(s)
Whether the Sandiganbayan committed grave abuse of discretion in denying petitioner's motion for re-determination of probable cause and motion for reconsideration. Whether the subject loans granted to ISI were behest loans, lacking sufficient collateral and obtained with undue haste; and whether the sufficiency of collateral and capital ratio were adequately considered. Whether petitioner, as Executive Vice President of ISI, can be held liable for violations of Section 3(e) and (g) of R.A. 3019, particularly concerning ISI's alleged failure to provide additional capitalization and collaterals. Whether there is sufficient evidence to establish petitioner's participation in a conspiracy related to the evaluation and grant of the loans.
Ruling
The petition is dismissed for lack of merit. The Sandiganbayan did not commit grave abuse of discretion.
Ratio Decidendi
On the Sandiganbayan's finding of probable cause and petitioner's alleged behest loans: The Court reiterated that it will not interfere with the Ombudsman's or Sandiganbayan's discretion in finding probable cause absent grave abuse of discretion. The petitioner's contention that the loans were not behest loans because they were sufficiently collateralized is a matter of defense that requires a full-blown trial. The Court noted that the petitioner, in his capacity as Executive Vice President of ISI, signed a Deed of Undertaking and Conformity to Bank Conditions, binding the corporation to put up additional capital and collaterals. Despite ISI's failure to honor the undertaking in the first loan, eight subsequent loan accommodations were granted, distinguishing this case from prior rulings where loans were dismissed for lack of evidence. The Court emphasized that being a crony of the late President Marcos is not an element of the offenses under Section 3(e) and (g) of R.A. 3019, and the Informations did not allege this. On whether the subject loans granted to ISI were behest loans, lacking sufficient collateral and obtained with undue haste; and on the sufficiency of collateral and capital ratio: The petitioner's argument that the loans were not undercollateralized because ISI offered additional securities beyond the land, and that the prosecution's claim of a low capital ratio was unsubstantiated, were deemed matters of defense. The Court found that the petitioner's reliance on Presidential Ad Hoc Fact-Finding Committee on Behest Loans v. Desierto was misplaced because, in this case, the petitioner's signature on the undertaking demonstrated his participation. The Court also noted that the specific valuation of additional properties as collateral and the banking standards for capital ratios are issues best resolved during trial. On petitioner's liability as Executive Vice President: While the power to increase capitalization and offer collateral lies with the board of directors, corporate officers can still be held criminally liable for their participation in criminal acts. The Court found evidence that petitioner participated by signing the Deed of Undertaking. The Sandiganbayan's finding of probable cause was not solely based on this undertaking but also on the circumstances surrounding the granting of the first loan and subsequent transactions, which appeared to be part of a design to prejudice the government. On the alleged absence of conspiracy: The petitioner's assertion that no conspiracy was proven was also considered an evidentiary matter and a defense to be raised and proven during a full-blown trial. The Court reiterated that it is not a trier of facts and will not overturn the findings of the Ombudsman and Sandiganbayan if supported by substantial evidence.
Main Doctrine
The Court will not interfere with the Ombudsman's or Sandiganbayan's finding of probable cause absent grave abuse of discretion. The determination of whether loans are behest loans, the sufficiency of collateral, and the existence of conspiracy are matters of defense to be ventilated in a full-blown trial.