G.R. No. 130817 ; August 22, 2001
PRESIDENTIAL AD HOC FACT-FINDING COMMITTEE ON BEHEST LOANS represented by MAGTANGGOL C. GUNIGUNDO, PCGG Chairman & ORLANDO L. SALVADOR, as Consultant, Technical Working Group of the Presidential Ad Hoc Fact-Finding Committee on Behest Loans, petitioner, vs. HON. ANIANO A. DESIERTO, as Ombudsman, P. O. DOMINGO, MARIO ORTIZ & ALEJANDRO CRUZ, Philippine National Bank Officers, and ENRIQUE T. GALAN, SEBASTIAN C. COSCOLLUELA, ARSENIO L. DEL ROSARIO & JOSE HAUTEA, Officers of Calinog-Lambunao Sugar Mills, Inc., respondents.

FACTS

The petitioner, represented by its consultant Atty. Orlando Salvador, filed a complaint with the Office of the Ombudsman against the respondents, who were officers of the Philippine National Bank (PNB) and Calinog-Lambunao Sugar Mills, Inc. (Calinog). The complaint alleged that loans granted to Calinog in 1968, 1978, 1979, and 1982 were behest loans, having met criteria such as being undercollateralized, the borrower being undercapitalized, and the project’s non-feasibility, and thus constituted violations of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act ( R.A. No. 3019 ). The Ombudsman dismissed the complaint solely on the ground of prescription, ruling that the fifteen-year prescriptive period for offenses under R.A. No. 3019 had lapsed from the time the loan transactions were made. The petitioner then filed this special civil action for certiorari to annul the Ombudsman’s resolution and to compel the filing of an information. During the proceedings, the Ombudsman manifested willingness to have the case remanded for preliminary investigation.

ISSUE

Whether the offense of violation of R.A. No. 3019 , allegedly committed through behest loans granted in 1968, 1978, 1979, and 1982, had already prescribed when the complaint was filed on March 24, 1997.

RULING

The Supreme Court GRANTED the petition, SET ASIDE the Ombudsman’s resolution, and DIRECTED the Ombudsman to conduct a preliminary investigation. The Court ruled that the filing of the complaint was within the prescriptive period. The prescriptive period for offenses under R.A. No. 3019 is fifteen years. Applying Act No. 3326 , as amended, the period begins to run from the day of the commission of the violation if known at the time; if not known, it runs from the discovery thereof. The Court held that for violations of R.A. No. 3019 committed prior to the February 1986 EDSA Revolution, the government, as the aggrieved party, could not have known of the violations at the time the transactions were made. Thus, the prescriptive period commenced only from the discovery of the offense, which occurred in 1992 after an investigation by the Presidential Ad Hoc Committee on Behest Loans. The prescriptive period was interrupted upon the filing of the complaint with the Ombudsman on March 24, 1997, which was only five years from the 1992 discovery, well within the fifteen-year period.