G.R. No. 148269; November 22, 2010
PRESIDENTIAL AD HOC FACT-FINDING COMMITTEE ON BEHEST LOANS, represented by Atty. ORLANDO L. SALVADOR, Petitioner, vs. Hon. ANIANO DESIERTO, in his capacity as OMBUDSMAN, et al., Respondents.

FACTS

The Presidential Ad Hoc Fact-Finding Committee on Behest Loans, tasked to inventory behest loans, investigated a loan guarantee agreement between Coco-Complex Philippines, Inc. (CCPI) and the National Investment Development Corporation (NIDC). The petitioner alleged the 1968 guarantee for a DM7.4 million loan was a behest loan, citing undercollateralization, CCPI’s undercapitalization, and extraordinary speed of approval. It further claimed NIDC subsequently approved additional loans, restructuring, and equity conversions for CCPI without sufficient collateral. The petitioner filed a criminal complaint for violation of the Anti-Graft Act against various respondents, including individuals identified as officers of the Development Bank of the Philippines (DBP) and CCPI.
The Ombudsman initially dismissed the case due to prescription, but the Supreme Court reversed and ordered a preliminary investigation. During reinvestigation, the petitioner requested subpoenas to obtain NIDC board resolutions from the Philippine National Bank to identify the specific NIDC directors responsible. The Ombudsman did not act on this request and subsequently dismissed the complaint again, citing the petitioner’s failure to identify the liable NIDC officials and noting that the named DBP officers should not be implicated as the loan did not involve DBP.

ISSUE

Whether the Ombudsman committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the criminal complaint for failure to identify the specific NIDC officials responsible, despite the petitioner’s request for subpoenas to obtain the necessary records.

RULING

Yes, the Ombudsman committed grave abuse of discretion. The Court ruled that the Ombudsman’s duty to conduct a preliminary investigation is not merely passive but includes an affirmative duty to discover the truth. The petitioner had provided a factual basis for the complaint, detailing the alleged behest nature of the loan transactions and specifying the board resolutions involved. When the petitioner encountered difficulty in securing the NIDC records to identify the specific directors, it formally requested the Ombudsman to issue subpoenas duces tecum. The Ombudsman’s failure to act on this request and its subsequent dismissal of the complaint for lack of specific identities constituted a refusal to perform a positive duty required by law. This inaction effectively prevented the petitioner from completing its submission and deprived the Ombudsman of evidence crucial to a proper determination of probable cause. Consequently, the dismissal was capricious and whimsical. The Court granted the petition, set aside the Ombudsman’s resolutions, and remanded the case for further proceedings, directing the Ombudsman to act on the petitioner’s request for subpoenas and conduct the preliminary investigation with dispatch.