GR 131966; (August, 2005) (Digest)
G.R. No. 131966 . August 31, 2005
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, vs. HON. ANIANO A. DESIERTO, as Ombudsman, EDUARDO M. COJUANGCO, JR., et al., Respondents.
FACTS
The Republic filed a complaint before the Ombudsman (OMB-0-90-2811) against Eduardo Cojuangco, Jr. and others for alleged violations of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act ( R.A. No. 3019 ) and Article 186 of the Revised Penal Code concerning the acquisition of sixteen oil mills by the United Coconut Planters Bank (UCPB) and United Coconut Oil Mills (UNICOM). The Ombudsman dismissed the complaint, finding no sufficient evidence of probable cause, partly because the acquisitions were purportedly done pursuant to LOI No. 926 and P.D. Nos. 961 and 1468. The Republic successfully petitioned the Supreme Court via certiorari, leading to the reinstatement of the complaint and an order for the Ombudsman to proceed with the preliminary investigation.
Cojuangco filed motions for reconsideration, arguing that the Ombudsman’s finding of lack of probable cause was not overturned, that the Court erroneously ruled on prescription, that the mentioned laws preclude prosecution, and that his right to speedy disposition was violated. The Republic also sought reconsideration regarding the Court’s earlier order to exclude respondents Teodoro Regala and Jose Concepcion as defendants.
ISSUE
The primary issues were: (1) whether the Ombudsman correctly dismissed the complaint based on the implementing laws; (2) whether the offense had prescribed; (3) whether the right to speedy disposition was violated; and (4) whether respondents Regala and Concepcion should be excluded.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the motions for reconsideration. On the issue of probable cause, the Court clarified that the Ombudsman’s dismissal was primarily based on the conclusion that the acts were pursuant to LOI No. 926 and P.D. Nos. 961 and 1468, not on an independent assessment of evidence for graft. The Court held that these laws do not automatically shield respondents from prosecution under R.A. No. 3019 . The preliminary investigation must still determine if the transactions were manifestly disadvantageous to the government, caused undue injury, or involved personal gain—elements constituting corrupt practices. The Ombudsman’s failure to consider these questions warranted the remand.
On prescription, the Court found an evidentiary basis for its prior ruling that the offense had not prescribed, citing its earlier decision. Regarding the right to speedy disposition, the Court noted the issue was not raised in the original petition and thus could not be considered. As for Regala and Concepcion, the Court affirmed their exclusion, applying the doctrine from Regala v. Sandiganbayan and Castillo v. Sandiganbayan, which holds that lawyers who become board members in the course of legal service cannot be compelled to testify against their clients without violating attorney-client privilege. Finally, the Court dismissed the case against respondent Maria Clara Lobregat due to her death, as criminal liability is extinguished upon death prior to final judgment. The September 23, 2002 Decision was modified accordingly.