GR 139930; (June, 2012) (Digest)

G.R. No. 139930; June 26, 2012
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, vs. EDUARDO M. COJUANGCO, JR., ET AL., Respondents.

FACTS

This case involves an attempt to recover alleged ill-gotten wealth from the Marcos era. Respondents, as directors of the United Coconut Planters Bank (UCPB), approved Resolution 247-79 on August 29, 1979, authorizing an investment of up to ₱500 million from the Coconut Industry Investment Fund (CII Fund) into United Coconut Oil Mills, Inc. (UNICOM). Subsequently, on September 18, 1979, a new UNICOM board, which included several UCPB directors, approved a capital restructuring. This converted the original subscriptions, including UCPB’s ₱495 million investment for 4 million shares, into 500 million Class “A” voting common shares. The conversion allegedly gave unwarranted benefits to UNICOM’s original incorporators by increasing their shareholdings without additional cost. The Certificate of Filing of the Amended Articles of Incorporation was filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 8, 1980.
The Office of the Solicitor General filed a complaint for violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act) against the respondents before the Presidential Commission on Good Government on March 1, 1990. The case was later referred to the Office of the Ombudsman. The Office of the Special Prosecutor, in a 1999 Memorandum, found probable cause but recommended dismissal due to prescription. The Ombudsman approved the dismissal, ruling the offense prescribed on February 8, 1990, or ten years from the public filing of the amended articles. The Republic filed a motion for reconsideration, which was denied, prompting this petition.

ISSUE

Whether or not the respondents’ alleged violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. 3019 had already prescribed.

RULING

Yes, the action had prescribed. The Court, treating the petition as one for certiorari under Rule 65, found no grave abuse of discretion in the Ombudsman’s ruling. The prescriptive period for the offense, as per the law in force in 1979, was ten years. The Court affirmed that prescription began to run from the date of the commission of the offense, which was consummated on September 18, 1979, when the UCPB board’s investment resolution was implemented through UNICOM’s capital restructuring. This act allegedly caused undue injury to the government by giving unwarranted benefits to the incorporators. The Court rejected the petitioner’s argument that prescription should run from the date of discovery of the offense, emphasizing that for violations of R.A. 3019, the period generally commences from the date of the commission of the crime. The filing of the amended articles with the SEC on February 8, 1980, merely made the transaction public but did not alter the date of consummation. Consequently, the ten-year period expired on September 18, 1989. The complaint filed on March 1, 1990, was therefore untimely. The petition was denied.