GR 109376; (January, 2000) (Digest)
G.R. No. 109376 January 20, 2000
PANFILO O. DOMINGO, petitioner, vs. THE SANDIGANBAYAN (Second Division) and THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Panfilo O. Domingo, former President of the Philippine National Bank (PNB), was charged before the Sandiganbayan with violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act). The information alleged that in July 1980, Domingo, conspiring with former President Ferdinand Marcos and Rodolfo Cuenca of the Construction and Development Corporation of the Philippines (CDCP), with evident bad faith and manifest partiality, facilitated the approval of a US$40 million standby letter of credit for CDCP despite collateral deficiencies. This act allegedly caused undue injury to PNB, which was forced to assume CDCP’s obligation after a default. Domingo filed a motion to quash the information, arguing prescription and that the facts charged did not constitute an offense. The Sandiganbayan denied the motion, prompting this petition for certiorari.
ISSUE
Whether the Sandiganbayan committed grave abuse of discretion in denying Domingo’s motion to quash, specifically on the grounds of prescription and failure of the information to charge an offense.
RULING
The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, upholding the Sandiganbayan’s resolution. On the issue of prescription, the Court ruled that the prescriptive period for the offense commenced only upon its discovery. The alleged acts occurred in 1980, but the complaint was filed by PNB with the Tanodbayan in 1987. Applying Act No. 3326, prescription begins to run from the discovery of the offense, not from its commission. The filing of the complaint in 1987 effectively interrupted the prescriptive period. The preliminary investigation, though prolonged, was justified due to the complexity of the case and the initial difficulty in serving Domingo. The Court found no inordinate delay that would violate his right to speedy disposition.
Regarding the sufficiency of the information, the Court held that it adequately charged the elements of violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019. It alleged that Domingo, a public officer, acted with evident bad faith and manifest partiality in conspiracy with others, causing undue injury to the government and giving unwarranted benefits to a private party. These allegations, if proven, constitute the offense. A motion to quash on the ground that the facts charged do not constitute an offense hypothetically admits the truth of the allegations in the information. The Court found no grave abuse of discretion in the Sandiganbayan’s denial, as its action was based on a correct application of law and jurisprudence.