GR 139675; (July, 2006) (Digest)
G.R. No. 139675 ; July 21, 2006
PRESIDENTIAL COMMISSION ON GOOD GOVERNMENT (PCGG), Represented by ATTY. ORLANDO L. SALVADOR, petitioner, vs. HON. ANIANO DESIERTO, RECIO M. GARCIA, DON FERRY, JOSEPH CHUA, JAIME C. LAYA, RAFAEL ATAYDE, ANDRES CHENG, and EDGAR RODRIGUEZ, respondents.
FACTS
The Presidential Ad Hoc Fact-Finding Committee on Behest Loans, through PCGG Consultant Atty. Orlando Salvador, filed a complaint with the Office of the Ombudsman against private respondents, who were officers of Sabena Mining Corporation (SABEMCOR) and the Development Bank of the Philippines (DBP). The complaint alleged that loans granted to SABEMCOR, totaling millions of dollars and pesos, were behest loans for violating Section 3(e) and (g) of R.A. No. 3019. The Committee classified the loans as behest under Memorandum Order No. 61, citing the criteria that they were under-collateralized and that SABEMCOR was undercapitalized at the time of the grant.
The Ombudsman dismissed the complaint. It found that the loans were sufficiently collateralized, as the appraised value of the assets offered as security exceeded the loan amounts. It also ruled there was insufficient evidence to prove undercapitalization, noting the complainant’s own admission that his data was incomplete. Additionally, the Ombudsman held that the action had prescribed. The PCGG filed this petition for certiorari to nullify the Ombudsman’s dismissal.
ISSUE
Whether the Ombudsman committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the complaint for lack of probable cause and on the ground of prescription.
RULING
The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, finding no grave abuse of discretion by the Ombudsman. On the substantive merits, the Court upheld the Ombudsman’s finding that the loans were not under-collateralized. The records showed the appraised value of the assets to be acquired with the initial loan was P142.3 million, which was higher than the loan amount of P112.5 million. Subsequent loans were also backed by adequate collateral. The claim of undercapitalization was insufficiently proven, as the complainant failed to submit crucial financial statements to substantiate it. The Court emphasized that the Ombudsman has broad discretion in determining probable cause, and its findings, when supported by substantial evidence, are generally not reviewable by certiorari.
Regarding prescription, the Court affirmed that the offenses had prescribed. The alleged acts occurred between 1977 and 1982. The complaint was filed only in 1997, well beyond the 15-year prescriptive period for violations of R.A. No. 3019, which commences from the discovery of the offense. The Court rejected the PCGG’s argument that prescription was interrupted by the respondents’ absence from the Philippines, as the PCGG failed to present competent evidence to prove such absence was for the purpose of evading prosecution. Consequently, the Ombudsman’s resolution was sustained.