Source: http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&amp;view=article&amp;id=50080:gr-138142-2007&amp;catid=1496&amp;Itemid=566
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 18:17:52+00:00

Document:
G.R. No. 138142 - THE PRESIDENTIAL AD HOC FACT-FINDING COMMITTEE ON BEHEST LOANS, ET AL. v. OMBUDSMAN ANIANO A. DESIERTO, ET AL.
THE PRESIDENTIAL AD HOC FACT-FINDING COMMITTEE ON BEHEST LOANS and PRESIDENTIAL COMMISSION ON GOOD GOVERNMENT, Petitioners, v. OMBUDSMAN ANIANO A. DESIERTO, ALICIA LL. REYES, LEONIDES S. VIRATA, RODOLFO D. MANALO, VERDEN C. DANGILAN, ISMAEL A. MATHAY, JR., JOSE Y. CAMPOS, FRANCISCO DE GUZMAN and ERWIN G. VORSTER, Respondents.
This is a petition for certiorari 1 seeking to nullify the resolution of then Ombudsman Aniano A. Desierto dated October 12, 19982 dismissing the complaint against private respondents in OMB-0-98-0364, as well as the order dated January 5, 19993 denying the motion for reconsideration.
The latter four were officers and stockholders of PTPI.
All eight were charged with violation of Section 3 (e) and (g) of RA 3019, otherwise known as the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.
In our resolution dated August 29, 2001, we dismissed the case insofar as private respondent Virata was concerned since he had passed away.
Petitioner Presidential Ad Hoc Fact-Finding Committee on Behest Loans was created pursuant to Administrative Order No. 13 dated October 8, 1992 issued by former President Fidel V. Ramos, with the chairman of PCGG as chairman, the Solicitor General as vice chairman and one representative each from the Office of the Executive Secretary, Department of Finance, Department of Justice, DBP, Philippine National Bank, Asset Privatization Trust, Office of the Government Corporate Counsel and the Philippine Export and Foreign Loan Guarantee Corporation as members. It was tasked to inventory all behest loans, identify the lenders and borrowers and recommend the course of action that the government should take to recover such loans.
h. extraordinary speed at which the loan release was made.
Accordingly, a complaint was filed in the Office of the Ombudsman for violation of RA 3019, section 3 (e) and (g). In a resolution dated October 12, 1998, the Office of the Ombudsman dismissed the complaint. It held that (1) there was no evidence that the loan was granted at the behest, command or urging of previous government officials; (2) PTPI complied with the DBP requirement that it would increase its paid-up capital from P25,000 to P1 million; (3) the loan was not undercollateralized and (4) the complaint was barred by prescription. It denied reconsideration in an order dated January 5, 1999.
Hence this petition for certiorari .
The issue for our resolution is whether the Ombudsman committed grave abuse of discretion in (1) holding that the offenses charged in the complaint had already prescribed and (2) dismissing the complaint for lack of probable cause to indict private respondents for violation of Section 3 (e) and (g) of RA 3019.
The Ombudsman held that the ten-year prescriptive period commenced on the date of the violation of law under Section 11 of RA 3019. The transaction occurred in 1974. Hence, the complaint was allegedly barred by prescription when it was filed on February 17, 1998.
Sec. 2. Prescription shall begin to run from the day of the commission of the violation of the law, and if the same be not known at the time, from the discovery thereof and institution of judicial proceedings for its investigation and punishment.
The prescription shall be interrupted when proceedings are instituted against the guilty person and shall begin to run again if the proceedings are dismissed for reasons not constituting double jeopardy.
This simply means that if the commission of the crime is known, the prescriptive period shall commence to run on the day it was committed.
There is no evidence on record to prove that the loan was granted to PTPI at the behest, command or urging by previous government officials. As appearing from its Corporate Profile, PTPI is a company organized on August 9, 1974 to take over the properties acquired by DBP from Fil-Eastern Wood Industries, Inc. (FEWI). The foreign currency loan of US $13.5 million will be used to purchase brand new sawmill and veneering plant and additional logging equipment since the old equipment were found to be obsolete.
Although at the inception or at the time the loan was applied, its paid-up capital amounted to P25,000.00 only, DBP required, under Board Resolution No. 2415, that prior to the issuance of letter of guarantee and execution of deed of sale, in order to cover the pre-operating expenses, PTPI shall first increase its paid-up capital from P25,000.00 to P1.0 million. The traditional equity requirement equivalent to 25% of investment was waived in view of the joint and several signature of Macmillan Jardine and the guarantee of Macmillan Bloedel and Jardine Matheson. In addition, PTPI should also comply with DBP's requirement that the 80% collateral ratio is maintained.
We find no reason to deviate from this rule.
First, the loan accommodation was not undercollateralized. The assets to be acquired by PTPI would serve as collateral for the loan. The value of these assets, when added to PTPI's existing properties (which would also serve as collaterals) was higher than the value of the loan.
Second, PTPI complied with the DBP requirement to increase its paid-up capital from P25,000 to P1 million.
Third, the loan proposal was studied and evaluated by DBP. There was no showing that the DBP officials did not exercise sound business judgment in approving said loan.
In sum, from the facts presented, we cannot conclude that the Ombudsman committed grave abuse of discretion in finding lack of probable cause. The complaint against the private respondents should therefore be dismissed.
WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby DISMISSED. The resolution dated October 12, 1998 and order dated January 5, 1999 of respondent Ombudsman in OMB-0-98-0364 are AFFIRMED.
1 Under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court.
2 Penned by Graft Investigating Officer I Marydel B. Jarlos and approved by the Ombudsman; rollo, pp. 30-34.
4 Respondent Dangilan was Executive Officer for Agriculture from 1966 to 1981. Afterwards, he became Executive Officer in charge of the Special Management Unit IV. Id., pp. 30, 170, 171, 173.
5 Respondent Vorster never submitted any pleading before this Court.
6 Under DBP Board Resolution No. 2415, as amended by Board Resolution No. 3062 dated October 16, 1974; id., p. 31.
11 G.R. No. 130140, 25 October 1999, 317 SCRA 272.
13 Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG) v. Hon. Aniano A. Desierto, G.R. No. 140231, 9 July 2007; Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG) v. Desierto, G.R. No. 139675, 21 July 2006, 496 SCRA 112; Atty. Salvador v. Hon. Desierto, 464 Phil. 988 (2004); PAFFC on Behest Loans v. Ombudsman Desierto, 418 Phil. 715 (2001); Pres. Ad Hoc Fact Finding Com. On Behest Loans v. Ombudsman Desierto, 415 Phil. 135 (2001); Presidential Commission on Good Government v. Desierto, G.R. No. 140232, 19 January 2001, 349 SCRA 767; Presidential Commission on Good Government v. Desierto, G.R. No. 140358, 8 December 2000, 347 SCRA 561.
14 According to petitioners, the Fact-Finding Committee conducted its investigation during the period of October 1992 to January 1994 and submitted its report to President Ramos on March 1994; rollo, p. 25.
"Section 11 of R.A. No. 3019, as amended by B.P. Blg. 195, provides that the offenses committed under the said statute shall prescribe in fifteen (15) years. It appears however, that prior to the amendment of Section 11 of R.A. No. 3019 by B.P. Blg. 195 which was approved on March 16, 1982, the prescriptive period for offenses punishable under the said statute was only ten (10) years. The longer prescriptive period of fifteen (15) years, as provided in Section 11 of R.A. No. 3019 as amended by B.P. Blg. 195, does not apply in this case for the reason that the amendment, not being favorable to the accused (herein private respondent), cannot be given retroactive effect. Hence the crime prescribed on January 6, 1986 or ten (10) years from January 6, 1976."
5) that the public officers acted with manifest partiality, evident bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence.
3) that such contract or transaction is grossly and manifestly disadvantageous to the government.
17 Soria v. Desierto, G.R. NOS. 153524-25, 31 January 2005, 450 SCRA 339, 345, citing Duero v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 131282, 4 January 2002, 373 SCRA 11, 17; Perez v. Office of the Ombudsman, G.R. No. 131445, 27 May 2004, 429 SCRA 357.
18 Rollo, pp. 75-76, citations omitted.
Sec. 12. The Ombudsman and his Deputies, as protectors of the people, shall act promptly on complaints filed in any form or manner against public officials or employees of the government, or any subdivision, agency or instrumentality thereof, including government-owned or controlled corporations, and shall, in appropriate cases, notify the complainants of the action taken and results thereof.
20 Pres. Ad Hoc Fact Finding Com. On Behest Loans v. Ombudsman Desierto, 415 Phil. 135, 142 (2001), citations omitted.
21 Espinosa v. Ombudsman, G.R. No. 135775, 19 October 2000, 343 SCRA 744, 746.
23 Pres. Ad Hoc Fact Finding Com. on Behest Loans v. Ombudsman Desierto, supra note 13.
24 PCGG v. Desierto, supra note 13.
f) subjected to preliminary investigation."
In his Manifestation and Motion dated December 23, 2002, the Ombudsman stated that the case could be referred back to his office for the conduct of preliminary investigation in accordance with the decision in the aforementioned Presidential Ad Hoc Fact-Finding Committee on Behest Loans v. Desierto (Rollo, pp. 296-297). However, we decline to do this since we have already declared in PCGG v. Desierto (supra note 13; PCGG v. Desierto, supra note 13) that when it is evident that the merits of the complaint had already been thoroughly examined by the Ombudsman, it would not be right to subject the private respondents to an unnecessary and prolonged anguish.

References: v. 
 v. 
 V. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.