G.R. No. 140232. January 19, 2001.
PRESIDENTIAL COMMISSION ON GOOD GOVERNMENT, Represented by ORLANDO L. SALVADOR, complainant, vs. HON. ANIANO DESIERTO, Office of the Ombudsman, et al., respondents.

FACTS

The Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG) filed a complaint with the Office of the Ombudsman against the directors of the Philippine National Bank (PNB) and the Development Bank of the Philippines (DBP), as well as against Rodolfo Cuenca of Basay Mining Corporation (BMC). The complaint alleged violations of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act (R.A. No. 3019) in relation to loans classified as “behest.” It was alleged that BMC, then CDCP Mining Corporation, obtained substantial loans starting in 1977 via PNB Board Resolution and a marginal note from then President Ferdinand Marcos, with insufficient collateral and capitalization. The Ombudsman’s Graft Investigation Officer, finding no sufficient basis and noting prescription, recommended dismissal, which Ombudsman Desierto approved. The PCGG’s motion for reconsideration was denied.

ISSUE

Whether the Office of the Ombudsman committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the PCGG’s complaint on the grounds of lack of merit and prescription.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition. On procedural grounds, while the petition was initially filed late under the old rules, the Court applied the retroactive effect of the new procedural rule (A.M. No. 00-2-03-SC) extending the filing period to sixty days, thereby considering the petition timely. On substantive grounds, the Court found no grave abuse of discretion by the Ombudsman. The Court reiterated the settled doctrine that the Ombudsman has wide investigatory and prosecutorial discretion, and courts should not interfere absent compelling reasons, such as a clear case of abuse. The Ombudsman’s findings on the lack of undercollateralization, undercapitalization, and direct endorsement by high officials were within its evaluative prerogative. Furthermore, the Court cited its ruling in Presidential Ad-Hoc Fact-Finding Committee on Behest Loans vs. Desierto (G.R. No. 130140, October 25, 1999), which held that offenses under R.A. No. 3019 prescribe in fifteen years. The transactions in question occurred from 1977 to 1982, and the complaint was filed only in 1995, beyond the prescriptive period. The Court also declined to remand the case despite the Ombudsman’s manifestation of willingness, as the merits had already been thoroughly examined, and a remand would only prolong the respondents’ anguish unnecessarily.