G.R. No. 136506 . January 16, 2023.
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, PETITIONER, VS. THE HONORABLE ANIANO A. DESIERTO AS OMBUDSMAN, EDUARDO COJUANGCO, JR., JUAN PONCE ENRILE, MARIA CLARA LOBREGAT, ROLANDO DELA CUESTA, JOSE ELEAZAR, JR., JOSE C. CONCEPCION, DANILO URSUA, NARCISO PINEDA, AND AUGUSTO OROSA, RESPONDENTS.

FACTS

The case stemmed from a Complaint dated February 12, 1990 filed by the Office of the Solicitor General before the Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG) against the respondents for violation of Republic Act No. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act). The complaint was referred to the Office of the Ombudsman and docketed as OMB-0-90-2808. The factual background involves the creation of the Coconut Industry Development Fund (CIDF) via Presidential Decree No. 582 in 1974 to finance a hybrid coconut seednut farm. On November 20, 1974, the National Investment and Development Corporation (NIDC), represented by respondent Augusto Orosa, entered into a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) with Agricultural Investors, Inc. (AII), a corporation owned/controlled by respondent Eduardo Cojuangco, Jr., for AII to develop a seed garden in Bugsuk Island, Palawan. The CIDF was later administered by the United Coconut Planters Bank (UCPB). After the CIDF was depleted and the MOA terminated in 1982, AII demanded arbitration. A Board of Arbitrators awarded AII liquidated damages amounting to PHP 958,650,000.00 from the CIDF on March 29, 1983. On April 19, 1983, the UCPB Board of Directors, composed of respondents Cojuangco, Jr., Enrile, Dela Cuesta, Ursua, and Pineda, adopted Resolution No. 111-83, resolving to “note” the arbitral award, allowing it to lapse with finality. The Republic’s complaint alleged that respondents, taking advantage of their official positions and relationship with then President Ferdinand Marcos, conspired to enter into contracts grossly disadvantageous to the government, resulting in the illegal disbursement of CIDF funds. The Ombudsman, through Graft Investigation Officer I Emora C. Pagunuran, dismissed the complaint on the ground of prescription of the offense in a Review and Recommendation dated August 6, 1998, approved by Ombudsman Aniano A. Desierto on August 14, 1998. The Republic’s motion for reconsideration was denied. The Republic then filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 before the Supreme Court.

ISSUE

Whether the Office of the Ombudsman committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the complaint (OMB-0-90-2808) against the respondents on the ground of prescription.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court granted the petition, reversed and set aside the Ombudsman’s dismissal orders, and directed the Ombudsman to proceed with the preliminary investigation. The Court held that the offense had not prescribed. The applicable prescriptive period for violations of R.A. No. 3019 is fifteen (15) years pursuant to Act No. 3326 . The prescriptive period commenced to run from the day of the discovery of the offense, which, in this case, was the discovery of the alleged conspiracy and illegal disbursement. The Court found that the Republic, through the PCGG, could only have discovered the offense after the 1986 EDSA Revolution when it gained access to documents and information. The complaint was filed on February 12, 1990, well within the fifteen-year period from the date of discovery. The Court further ruled that the Ombudsman’s dismissal based solely on prescription, without conducting a preliminary investigation to determine the actual date of discovery, constituted grave abuse of discretion. The case was remanded to the Ombudsman for further proceedings. Notably, respondents Jose Eleazar, Jr., Augusto Orosa, Maria Clara Lobregat, and Eduardo Cojuangco, Jr. had died prior to final judgment, thus terminating their criminal liability.