G.R. No. 131966 ; August 16, 2004
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, vs. HON. ANIANO A. DESIERTO, as Ombudsman, EDUARDO C. CONJUANGCO, JR., et al., respondents.

FACTS

This resolves motions for reconsideration of the Court’s September 23, 2002 Decision, which granted the Republic’s petition for certiorari, set aside the Ombudsman’s resolution dismissing the complaint in OMB-0-90-2811, and ordered the Ombudsman to proceed with the preliminary investigation. The complaint involved allegations of graft and corrupt practices under R.A. No. 3019 and Article 186 of the Revised Penal Code concerning the acquisition of oil mills by the United Coconut Planters Bank (UCPB) and the United Coconut Oil Mills (UNICOM).
Private respondent Eduardo Cojuangco, Jr. sought reconsideration, arguing the Ombudsman correctly found no probable cause, that the offense had prescribed, that the acts were sanctioned by LOI 926 and PD Nos. 961 & 1468, and that his right to speedy disposition was violated. The Republic also sought reconsideration, assailing the exclusion of respondents Teodoro Regala and Jose Concepcion from the case. A notice was also filed informing the Court of respondent Maria Clara Lobregat’s demise.

ISSUE

The primary issues were whether the Court erred in: (1) nullifying the Ombudsman’s dismissal for lack of probable cause; (2) ruling the offense had not prescribed; (3) finding that LOI 926 and PD Nos. 961 & 1468 do not preclude prosecution under R.A. No. 3019 ; (4) not dismissing the case for violation of the right to speedy disposition; and (5) excluding respondents Regala and Concepcion.

RULING

The Court denied the motions for reconsideration. It held that the Ombudsman’s finding of “no sufficient evidence” was premised on the erroneous conclusion that the acquisitions were lawful under LOI 926 and the cited decrees, not on an absolute absence of evidence of criminal acts. The validity of these laws does not shield respondents from criminal prosecution if the transactions were manifestly disadvantageous to the government, caused undue injury, or involved personal gain, as defined under R.A. No. 3019 . On prescription, the Court reiterated that the ten-year prescriptive period under Act No. 3326 , as applied, meant the complaint filed in 1990 was timely.
Regarding the right to speedy disposition, the Court found Cojuangco’s claim without merit, applying the balancing test from Dela Peña vs. Sandiganbayan and noting his failure to assert the right earlier amounted to a waiver. The exclusion of respondents Regala and Concepcion, who were lawyers for other respondents, was upheld based on the attorney-client privilege and their right against self-incrimination, as established in Regala vs. Sandiganbayan. Finally, due to the death of respondent Maria Clara Lobregat pending the petition, the criminal liability and any civil liability arising therefrom were extinguished, and the case against her was ordered dismissed. The Court’s prior Decision was thus modified only to dismiss the case against the deceased respondent.