Presidential Ad Hoc Committee on Behest Loans v. Tabasondra
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Two consolidated petitions for certiorari under Rule 65 were filed. G.R. No. 133756 involved the Presidential Ad Hoc Committee on Behest Loans seeking to set aside the Ombudsman's dismissal of charges against officers of the Philippine National Bank (PNB) and officers/stockholders of Coco-Complex Philippines, Inc. (CCPI) for violation of Section 3(e) and (g) of R.A. No. 3019, related to alleged behest loans granted to CCPI. G.R. No. 133757 involved the Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG) seeking to reverse the Ombudsman's dismissal of charges against former officers of the Development Bank of the Philippines (DBP) and officers/stockholders of Philippine Journalists, Inc. (PJI) for alleged behest loans granted to PJI. Procedural History: In G.R. No. 133756, the Ombudsman dismissed the complaint on the ground of prescription, stating that the offense prescribed in 15 years from February 10, 1972, the last loan release date, and the complaint was filed on June 23, 1997. The motion for reconsideration was denied. In G.R. No. 133757, the Ombudsman initially recommended dismissal for prescription and insufficient evidence, but later clarified the dismissal was for insufficiency of evidence, not prescription. The PCGG filed a motion for reconsideration which was denied. The Petition: Petitioners argued that the Ombudsman committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the cases. In G.R. No. 133756, they contended that the prescriptive period should be counted from the date of discovery, not commission, invoking the 'discovery rule' and 'equitable tolling.' In G.R. No. 133757, they argued that the Ombudsman's finding of insufficiency of evidence was a grave abuse of discretion, as the loans were allegedly undercollateralized and the borrowers undercapitalized.
Issue(s)
Whether the Ombudsman committed grave abuse of discretion in holding that the prescriptive period for the alleged violations of R.A. No. 3019 should be counted from the date of the grant of the behest loans (commission of the crime) and not from the date of discovery (G.R. No. 133756). Whether the Ombudsman committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the complaints in G.R. No. 133757 for insufficiency of evidence.
Ruling
The Supreme Court dismissed the consolidated petitions. G.R. No. 133756 was dismissed for being moot and academic. The Orders of the Office of the Ombudsman in G.R. No. 133757 dismissing the complaints against the respondents were affirmed.
Ratio Decidendi
On G.R. No. 133756 (Moot and Academic): The Court found that the issue of prescription raised in this petition had already been settled by this Court in a previous decision, G.R. No. 130140, dated October 25, 1999, in Presidential Ad Hoc Fact-Finding Committee on Behest Loans v. Desierto. In that case, the Court categorically enunciated that the prescriptive period for offenses involving behest loans had not yet prescribed and directed the Office of the Ombudsman to conduct a preliminary investigation. Consequently, the Ombudsman set aside the questioned Orders and conducted the preliminary investigation, rendering the present petition moot and academic as there was no longer an actual controversy to resolve. The Court reiterated the principle that courts will not consider questions in which no actual interests are involved and decline jurisdiction of moot cases, as a declaration thereon would be of no practical use or value. On G.R. No. 133757 (Grave Abuse of Discretion and Insufficiency of Evidence): The Court held that the Ombudsman did not commit grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the charges for insufficiency of evidence. The Ombudsman has the discretion to determine whether a criminal case should be filed or not, and the Court generally does not interfere with this prerogative unless tainted with grave abuse of discretion, which is defined as capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment. In this case, the Ombudsman meticulously scrutinized the evidence and found that the loans were sufficiently collateralized and the borrowers adequately capitalized, contrary to the allegations. The Court detailed the specific collaterals and securities for both loans, as well as the project viability studies and consultations with various agencies, which supported the Ombudsman's conclusion that there was no probable cause to indict the respondents. The Court emphasized that as long as there is substantial evidence supporting the Ombudsman's decision, it will not be overturned.
Main Doctrine
The Supreme Court dismissed the petitions, ruling that G.R. No. 133756 was moot and academic due to a prior ruling settling the prescription issue, and affirmed the Ombudsman's dismissal in G.R. No. 133757 for insufficiency of evidence, finding no grave abuse of discretion.