Presidential Commission on Good Government v. Carpio-Morales
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Resorts Hotel Corporation (RHC), incorporated in 1968 with P1 million paid-up capital and 37.2% owned by Marcos crony Rodolfo Cuenca, obtained DBP loans starting 1969 (P9.7M for Baguio Pines Hotel balance and 8-storey building), restructured 1973 (P14.4M direct + P11.2M guarantee), additional 1974 (P8.9M expansion + P3.6M buses), 1975 (P27.8M expansion), 1977 (P11.3M refinance + Taal Vista), totaling P86.9M secured by acquired assets (Baguio Pines, Taal Vista, Hotel Mindanao, buses). In 1980, 40% converted to DBP equity, balance P58.4M restructured; foreclosed 1983 with P1.97M arrears; DBP exposure P99.1M by 1986. President Ramos' AO 13 (Oct 18, 1992) created Ad Hoc Committee on Behest Loans, guided by MO 61 criteria; Committee found RHC loans behest: undercollateralized, RHC undercapitalized (P10.3M vs P99M loans), Marcos cronies involved, Marcos owned 20% per Hawaii docs. Ad Hoc report to President Jan 4, 1993 concluded behest. PCGG filed Ombudsman complaint Jan 6, 2003 vs RHC/DBP officers for RA 3019 Secs 3(e),(g); supplemental June 4, 2004 naming DBP board. Procedural History: Ombudsman July 19, 2011 Order dismissed for lack of jurisdiction (only private parties charged, DBP refused docs identifying public respondents). PCGG MR argued supplemental named DBP directors; Ombudsman March 8, 2012 denied, dismissed on prescription: filed Jan 6, 2003 10 years from discovery Jan 4, 1993. The Petition: PCGG certiorari under Rule 65 vs Ombudsman orders, arguing no prescription: period starts Jan 6, 2003 filing per Act 3326 Sec. 2 ('discovery thereof and institution'); RA 3019 Sec. 11 is 15 years per BP 195 and Presidential Ad Hoc v. Desierto.
Issue(s)
Whether the Ombudsman committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the complaint for lack of jurisdiction. Whether the offenses under RA 3019 Secs. 3(e),(g) have prescribed.
Ruling
Petition denied; Ombudsman Orders affirmed. Applicable 10-year period under RA 3019 Sec. 11 (pre-1982 crimes); reckoned from discovery Jan 4, 1993 (Ad Hoc report) as behest loans concealed/suppressed; 2003 filing barred.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: Though initial dismissal cited lack of jurisdiction (no public respondents named, DBP docs refused), MR/supplemental identified DBP board (e.g., Licaros, Beduya, Tengco); however, no grave abuse as case turned on prescription, rendering jurisdiction moot; Ombudsman properly proceeded to merits post-MR. On Issue 2: RA 3019 Sec. 11 prescribes in 10 years pre-BP 195 (March 16, 1982); longer 15-year not retroactive, favorable to accused per People v. Pacificador (G.R. No. 139405). Act 3326 Sec. 2: from commission if known, or discovery + 'until' institution if not (per Duque: avoids absurdity of simultaneous start/interruption; discovery of unlawful nature, not mere lack of knowledge). For behest loans (1969-1977), second mode applies: crimes not reasonably knowable due to Marcos connivance/suppression (blameless ignorance per Desierto cases); discovery Jan 4, 1993 Ad Hoc report completion after exhaustive probe. Guidelines from jurisprudence (Duque, Desierto 1999/2011, Romualdez, Disini, Cojuangco): (1) general from commission; (2) discovery if unknown; (3) public info = general; suppressed (martial law/crony docs) = discovery. Unlike Cojuangco (public investment), RHC loans concealed by nature; 2003 filing 10 years from 1993, prescribed.
Main Doctrine
The prescriptive period for offenses under RA 3019 prescribes in 10 years for crimes committed before March 16, 1982 (effectivity of BP Blg. 195 extending to 15 years), applying the rule more favorable to the accused per People v. Pacificador. Under Act No. 3326 Sec. 2, prescription runs from commission if known, or from discovery and institution of proceedings if not known, interpreted as 'until' institution to avoid absurdity per People v. Duque. For behest loans during Marcos regime, second mode applies due to suppression/connivance rendering crimes not reasonably knowable, reckoning from Ad Hoc Committee discovery report. Guidelines: (1) general from commission; (2) from discovery if unknown; (3) public availability triggers general, suppression/martial law triggers exception from discovery. In concealed behest loans, period starts January 4, 1993 (Ad Hoc report), barring 2003 Ombudsman complaint as 10 years later.