Presidential Commission on Good Government v. Desierto
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The Presidential Ad Hoc Committee on Behest Loans (Committee), created by Administrative Order No. 13 and expanded by Memorandum Order No. 61, was tasked to inventory behest loans and recommend actions. The Committee investigated loan transactions between Bagumbayan Corporation and the Development Bank of the Philippines (DBP), determining them to be behest loans due to being under-collateralized, Bagumbayan being undercapitalized, and undue haste in approval, with Dr. Pacifico Marcos, Chairman of Bagumbayan, being the brother of then President Ferdinand Marcos. Procedural History: Atty. Orlando L. Salvador, representing the Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG), filed a sworn complaint with the Office of the Ombudsman for violations of Sections 3(e) and (g) of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 3019 against officials of DBP and Bagumbayan Corporation. The Ombudsman dismissed the complaint in a Memorandum dated February 22, 1999, citing insufficiency of evidence and prescription. The Ombudsman also noted the death of three respondents. A motion for reconsideration was denied on May 21, 1999. The Petition: Petitioners, represented by Atty. Salvador, filed a petition for certiorari to set aside the Ombudsman's Memorandum and Order, raising issues of jurisdictional error or grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the charge for insufficiency of evidence and whether the case was barred by prescription.
Issue(s)
Whether the Public Respondent committed jurisdictional error or grave abuse of discretion when he dismissed the charge against the private respondents on the ground of insufficiency of evidence. Whether the case is barred by prescription.
Ruling
The petition is DISMISSED. The assailed Memorandum and Order of the Ombudsman are AFFIRMED.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of insufficiency of evidence and grave abuse of discretion: The Court affirmed the Ombudsman's finding that there was no probable cause to indict the respondents for violations of Sections 3(e) and (g) of R.A. No. 3019. The determination of probable cause is within the Ombudsman's discretion, and the Court will only intervene if there is grave abuse of discretion, which was not shown here. The petitioners failed to establish that the loans were under-collateralized, Bagumbayan was undercapitalized, or that there was undue haste in the approval, which are key criteria for behest loans. The Court noted that Dr. Pacifico Marcos assumed chairmanship after the original loans were approved, diminishing the claim that the loans were granted due to his relationship with the President. Furthermore, the Court found no evidence of manifest partiality, evident bad faith, gross inexcusable negligence, or that the contracts were grossly disadvantageous to the government. The presence of only one criterion (relationship of Dr. Marcos to the President) out of eight was insufficient to characterize the loans as behest loans. On the issue of prescription: The Court held that the Ombudsman erred in concluding that the offense had prescribed. Citing previous rulings in Presidential Ad-Hoc Fact-Finding Committee on Behest Loans v. Desierto and Presidential Ad-Hoc Fact-Finding Committee on Behest Loans v. Ombudsman Desierto, the Court reiterated that for offenses involving behest loans committed prior to the EDSA Revolution, the prescriptive period should be computed from the date of discovery, not from the date of commission. This is because the government, as the aggrieved party, could not have known of the violations at the time of the transactions due to connivance, and no one would have dared to question them. The Court found that the Committee's creation on October 8, 1992, marked the earliest possible date of discovery, and the complaint filed on February 28, 1998, was well within the prescriptive period. The Ombudsman's concession that prescription commences from the date of discovery further supported this conclusion.
Main Doctrine
The prescriptive period for offenses under R.A. No. 3019, particularly those involving behest loans, should be computed from the date of discovery of the offense, especially when the government, as the aggrieved party, could not have known of the violations at the time of commission due to connivance or conspiracy, and no one would have dared to question the legality of such transactions. The Ombudsman's dismissal of a complaint for insufficiency of evidence or prescription may be reviewed via certiorari if tainted by grave abuse of discretion, but the determination of probable cause is generally within the Ombudsman's discretion.