GR 136225; (April, 2008) (Digest)
G.R. No. 136225 ; April 23, 2008
THE PRESIDENTIAL AD-HOC FACT-FINDING COMMITTEE ON BEHEST LOANS (FFCBL), represented by ORLANDO L. SALVADOR, Consultant, Technical Working Group (TWG) of the Presidential Ad-Hoc FFCBL, and DANILO R. V. DANIEL, TWG Coordinator, FFCBL, petitioner, vs. HON. OMBUDSMAN ANIANO A. DESIERTO, RAFAEL SISON, JOSE DE OCAMPO, JOSE R. TENGCO, ALICE LL. REYES, and RODOLFO D. MANALO, public respondents. ANGEL G. ROMUALDEZ, JOSE G. ROMUALDEZ, and JOSE MANUEL ROMUALDEZ, private respondents.
FACTS
The Presidential Ad-Hoc Fact-Finding Committee on Behest Loans (FFCBL) was created to investigate and recover ill-gotten wealth through behest loans granted during the Marcos regime. The FFCBL identified a loan from the Development Bank of the Philippines (DBP) to Agretronics, Inc., a corporation whose incorporators included nephews of former First Lady Imelda Romualdez Marcos, as possessing characteristics of a behest loan. These characteristics included alleged extraordinary speed in approval, undercapitalization of the borrower, and undercollateralization. Based on this, the FFCBL filed a complaint with the Office of the Ombudsman against the Romualdezes and several DBP officers for violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.
The Ombudsman dismissed the complaint for lack of probable cause and on the ground of prescription. The Ombudsman found that the FFCBL failed to substantiate its claim of “extraordinary speed” in the loan approval, noting the approval period was not unusual. It also ruled that the offense had prescribed, as the complaint was filed more than ten years after the alleged irregular loan approval in 1980. The FFCBL filed a petition for certiorari and mandamus with the Supreme Court to nullify the Ombudsman’s dismissal.
ISSUE
Whether the Office of the Ombudsman committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the complaint for lack of probable cause and on the ground of prescription.
RULING
No. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, finding no grave abuse of discretion in the Ombudsman’s resolution. The Court emphasized that the determination of probable cause is a function constitutionally vested in the Ombudsman, and its findings are generally not subject to review unless shown to be tainted with grave abuse of discretion. The FFCBL failed to demonstrate that the Ombudsman’s assessment—that the evidence did not establish manifest partiality, bad faith, or gross negligence by the respondents—was arrived at arbitrarily or capriciously.
On the issue of prescription, the Court affirmed the Ombudsman’s application of the ten-year prescriptive period under Act No. 3326 . The loan was approved in December 1980, and the complaint was filed only in June 1996, well beyond the prescriptive period. The Court rejected the FFCBL’s argument that prescription was interrupted by the respondents’ absence from the Philippines, noting that the FFCBL did not present competent evidence, such as certifications from the Bureau of Immigration, to substantiate this claim. Consequently, the Ombudsman’s dismissal of the complaint was upheld.