GR 133756; (July, 2008) (Digest)
G.R. Nos. 133756 & 133757 July 4, 2008
PRESIDENTIAL AD HOC COMMITTEE ON BEHEST LOANS, represented by ATTY. ORLANDO SALVADOR, petitioner, vs. ULPIANO TABASONDRA, et al., respondents. / PRESIDENTIAL COMMISSION ON GOOD GOVERNMENT (PCGG), petitioner, vs. HON. ANIANO DESIERTO, OMBUDSMAN, et al., respondents.
FACTS
These consolidated petitions arose from the investigation of alleged behest loans. The Presidential Ad Hoc Fact Finding Committee on Behest Loans, created by President Ramos, inventoried loans and referred cases to the PCGG. In G.R. No. 133756, the Committee alleged that officers of the Philippine National Bank and Coco-Complex Philippines, Inc. (CCPI) violated the Anti-Graft Law by approving and obtaining undercollateralized loans for CCPI in 1968 and 1972. The Ombudsman dismissed the complaint in 1997 on the ground of prescription, as the offenses prescribed in 15 years from the 1972 transaction, and the complaint was filed only in 1997.
In G.R. No. 133757, the PCGG filed a complaint alleging that officers of the Development Bank of the Philippines and Philippine Journalists, Inc. (PJI) violated the Anti-Graft Law in connection with loans granted to PJI in 1976 and 1978. The Ombudsman dismissed this complaint in 1997, finding no probable cause. The Ombudsman ruled that the loans were not undercollateralized, PJI was sufficiently capitalized, and the loans underwent proper evaluation and were found financially viable by the DBP and other agencies.
ISSUE
Whether the Office of the Ombudsman committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the complaints against the respondents in both cases.
RULING
The Supreme Court dismissed the petitions, finding no grave abuse of discretion by the Ombudsman. In G.R. No. 133756, the Court declared the petition moot and academic. The Court noted that the core issue of prescription had already been settled in a prior case involving the same parties and the same CCPI loan, where the Court upheld the Ombudsman’s finding of prescription. The Court ruled that the principle of conclusiveness of judgment barred re-litigation of this identical issue.
For G.R. No. 133757, the Court affirmed the Ombudsman’s dismissal for lack of probable cause. The Court emphasized that the determination of probable cause is a function constitutionally vested in the Ombudsman, and courts will not interfere absent a clear showing of grave abuse of discretion. Grave abuse of discretion implies a capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment equivalent to lack of jurisdiction. The Court found the Ombudsman’s findings—that the PJI loans were sufficiently collateralized, the company was adequately capitalized, and the loans were properly evaluated for viability—were based on substantial evidence. The petitioners failed to demonstrate that these factual conclusions were arrived at arbitrarily. Consequently, the Ombudsman did not commit grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the complaint.