Presidential Commission on Good Government v. Desierto
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG) filed a criminal complaint for violation of Section 3(e) and (g) of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 3019 against members of the Philippine National Bank (PNB) Board of Directors and officers of Northern Cotabato Sugar Industries, Inc. (NOCOSII) concerning loan transactions. The PCGG alleged that these loans were "behest loans" based on the findings of the Presidential Ad Hoc Fact-Finding Committee on Behest Loans, which identified criteria for such loans. The Committee classified NOCOSII's loans from PNB as behest due to insufficient capital and inadequate collaterals, citing specific instances like excess loan value, use of public land as collateral, and low paid-up capital relative to the obligation. Procedural History: The Office of the Ombudsman, through Graft Investigator Officer I Melinda S. Diaz-Salcedo, recommended the dismissal of the case due to insufficiency of evidence or lack of probable cause and prescription of the offense. Ombudsman Aniano A. Desierto approved this recommendation. The PCGG's Motion for Reconsideration was denied. The Petition: The PCGG filed a Petition for Certiorari with the Supreme Court, assailing the Ombudsman's Resolution and Order, alleging grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the complaint on the ground of prescription and in not finding probable cause despite the evidence presented.
Issue(s)
Whether the Ombudsman committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the complaint on the ground of prescription. Whether the Ombudsman committed grave abuse of discretion in finding that no probable cause exists against the respondents for violation of Section 3(e) and (g) of R.A. No. 3019.
Ruling
The Supreme Court ruled that the Ombudsman committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the complaint on the ground of prescription. However, the Court found no grave abuse of discretion in the Ombudsman's finding of no probable cause due to insufficient evidence. The petition is partly meritorious.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of prescription: The Court held that the Ombudsman committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the complaint on the ground of prescription. Section 2 of Act No. 3326, as amended, provides that prescription begins to run from the day of the commission of the violation or, if not known at the time, from the discovery thereof. The Court reiterated its ruling in Presidential Ad Hoc Fact-Finding Committee on Behest Loans v. Desierto that in cases involving violations of R.A. No. 3019 committed prior to the EDSA Revolution, the government, as the aggrieved party, could not have known of the violations at the time the transactions were made. Therefore, the prescriptive period should be computed from the date of discovery, which was in 1992. The complaint was filed on April 5, 1995, well within the 15-year prescriptive period. The Court emphasized that the phrase 'if the same not be known' clearly refers to the lack of knowledge of the crime, and any interpretation to the contrary would defeat the intent of the law. The prescription is interrupted when proceedings are instituted against the guilty person. On the issue of probable cause: The Court found no cogent reason to disturb the findings of the Ombudsman regarding the lack of probable cause. The Ombudsman is empowered to determine whether there exists reasonable ground to believe that a crime has been committed and that the accused is probably guilty thereof. The Court will not ordinarily interfere with the Ombudsman's exercise of its investigatory and prosecutory powers unless there are compelling reasons. In this case, the Ombudsman's disquisition, supported by the evidence, indicated that the loans were foreign loans guaranteed by PNB, not direct loans. The collaterals offered by NOCOSII were deemed sufficient, and PNB had acquired majority voting rights and the power to appoint a comptroller, effectively bringing NOCOSII under government control. The various security instruments and conditions imposed by PNB further supported the finding that the accommodations were sufficiently secured and not a simple case of undue injury or grossly disadvantageous transaction. The Court concluded that the Ombudsman's finding of insufficiency of evidence or lack of probable cause was borne out by the evidence presented, and thus, there was no grave abuse of discretion.
Main Doctrine
The Ombudsman committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the complaint on the ground of prescription, as the prescriptive period for violations of R.A. No. 3019 should be computed from the discovery of the offense, not from the date of commission, especially when the offense is not immediately known. However, the Court found no grave abuse of discretion in the Ombudsman's finding of no probable cause due to insufficient evidence.