People v. David
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The Development Bank of the Philippines (DBP) filed a Complaint-Affidavit before the Office of the Ombudsman against Reynaldo G. David and other DBP officials, and Roberto V. Ongpin and other Deltaventures Resources, Inc. (DVRI) officials. The complaint alleged that the DBP officials granted and released two loans to DVRI in April and November 2009, totaling PHP 660,000,000.00. DBP averred that these were behest loans, granted with evident bad faith and manifest partiality, violating banking laws and policies, despite DVRI's undercapitalization and doubtful repayment capacity. The Ombudsman found probable cause to indict several DBP and DVRI officials for violations of Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. (RA) 3019, while dismissing charges against others for insufficiency of evidence. Procedural History: Two Informations were filed before the Sandiganbayan charging violations of Section 3(e) of RA 3019. The accused filed several motions to quash, primarily arguing that the facts charged do not constitute an offense and that the loans were not behest loans, citing full payment and interest income derived by DBP. The Sandiganbayan, in a Resolution dated May 28, 2014, granted the motions and dismissed the criminal cases, opining that while the Informations were complete, the loans were not behest in nature, thus negating the elements of evident bad faith, manifest partiality, and unwarranted benefits. The Sandiganbayan denied the prosecution's motion for reconsideration in a Resolution dated March 27, 2015. The Petition: The People of the Philippines, through the Office of the Solicitor General, filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, assailing the Sandiganbayan's dismissal of the criminal cases.
Issue(s)
Whether the Sandiganbayan erred in granting the motions to quash and dismissing the criminal cases. Whether the Sandiganbayan gravely erred in re-examining the evidence on record to determine the existence of probable cause and the elements of the crime charged during the resolution of motions to quash. Whether the full payment of the loans negates their behest nature and the elements of evident bad faith and manifest partiality.
Ruling
The petition is GRANTED. The Resolutions dated May 28, 2014 and March 27, 2015 of the Sandiganbayan are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Criminal Case Nos. SB-13-CRM-0105 and SB-13-CRM-0106 are REINSTATED, except as to respondents Miguel L. Romero, Reynaldo G. David, and Roberto V. Ongpin, and REMANDED to the Sandiganbayan for a trial on the merits WITH DISPATCH. The criminal cases are DISMISSED as against Romero, David, and Ongpin due to their supervening deaths.
Ratio Decidendi
On the Propriety of the Motion to Quash and the Sandiganbayan's Dismissal: The Court held that the Sandiganbayan gravely erred in dismissing the criminal cases. A motion to quash, particularly on the ground that the facts charged do not constitute an offense, operates on a hypothetical admission of the facts alleged in the information. The Court found that the Informations sufficiently alleged the essential elements of the violation of Section 3(e) of RA 3019, namely: (a) the accused were public officers discharging official functions, (b) they acted with evident bad faith and manifest partiality, and (c) they gave unwarranted benefits, advantage, or preference to DVRI. The Court reiterated that for a violation of Section 3(e) of RA 3019, it is sufficient that there be either undue injury or the giving of unwarranted benefits, advantage, or preference; an allegation of undue injury is not always necessary. On the Sandiganbayan's Re-examination of Probable Cause and Evidence: The Court emphasized that the Sandiganbayan had already judicially determined the existence of probable cause against the accused and issued warrants of arrest. Re-examining this finding during the resolution of motions to quash was unwarranted and constituted a premature appreciation of evidence not yet formally presented. The Court stressed that the presence or absence of the elements of the crime charged is evidentiary and should be determined during a full-blown trial on the merits, not on a motion to quash. The issue of whether the loans were behest in nature was deemed evidentiary and a matter of defense. On the Effect of Full Payment of Loans: The Court disagreed with the Sandiganbayan's conclusion that the full payment of the loans by DVRI negated their behest nature and the elements of the offense. The Court referred to Memorandum Order No. 61, which outlines criteria for determining behest loans, focusing on circumstances during the pre-execution and execution stages, not post-execution events like payment. Therefore, the fact that DVRI fully paid the loans did not automatically absolve the accused, as the alleged irregularities in the loan granting process, which occurred prior to payment, could still constitute violations of RA 3019.
Main Doctrine
The Sandiganbayan gravely erred in dismissing criminal cases on the ground that the facts charged do not constitute an offense, as the Informations sufficiently alleged the elements of violation of Section 3(e) of RA 3019. Furthermore, the Sandiganbayan improperly re-examined the evidence on record to determine the existence of probable cause, which had already been judicially determined. The issue of whether the loans were behest in nature is evidentiary and should be resolved during trial on the merits, not in a motion to quash. The full payment of a loan does not necessarily negate its behest nature.