G.R. No. 206357 , November 12, 2014
Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG), Petitioner, vs. The Honorable Ombudsman Conchita Carpio Morales, Gregorio S. Licaros, Gaudencio Beduya, Jose R. Tengco, Jr., Jose S. Esteves, Placido T. Mapa, Jr., Julio V. Macuja, Vicente Paterno, Rafael A. Sison, Roberto V. Ongpin, Alicia Ll. Reyes, Former Members of the Board of Governors of the Development Bank of the Philippines (DBP), Rodolfo M. Cuenca, Edilberto M. Cuenca, Jose Y. Villongco, Rodolfo B. Santiago, Aurelio Y. Bautista, Genoveva L. Bueno, Bienvenido D. Cruz, Romeo R. Echauz, Jorge W. Jose, Leonilo M. Ocampo, Antonio P. San Juan, Jr., Clarencio S. Yujico, All Officers of Resorts Hotels Corporation, Respondents.

FACTS

The Presidential Ad-Hoc Fact-Finding Committee on Behest Loans (Ad Hoc Committee) investigated loans granted by government financial institutions. One such loan was granted to Resorts Hotel Corporation (RHC), 37.2% owned by Rodolfo Cuenca, a known Marcos associate. From 1969 to 1977, RHC obtained loans totaling approximately ₱86.9 million from the Development Bank of the Philippines (DBP) for various hotel projects and acquisitions, secured by the assets acquired through the loans. By 1986, DBP’s total exposure amounted to ₱99.1 million. On January 4, 1993, the Ad Hoc Committee submitted a report concluding the RHC loans were behest, citing under-collateralization, undercapitalization, stockholders being Marcos cronies, and marginal notes indicating President Marcos owned 20% of RHC shares. Based on this, the Republic, represented by PCGG, filed an Affidavit-Complaint with the Office of the Ombudsman on January 6, 2003, against RHC officers and DBP directors for violating Sections 3(e) and 3(g) of R.A. No. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act). The Ombudsman dismissed the complaint on July 19, 2011, for lack of jurisdiction, citing the DBP’s refusal to furnish documents identifying public respondents. Upon motion for reconsideration, the Ombudsman issued an Order on March 8, 2012, dismissing the complaint on the ground of prescription, stating the offenses prescribed as the complaint was filed more than ten years from the discovery of the crimes on January 4, 1993. PCGG filed a Petition for Certiorari, arguing prescription began on January 6, 2003 (the filing date), not January 4, 1993 (discovery date), and that the prescriptive period under R.A. No. 3019 is fifteen years.

ISSUE

Whether or not respondent Ombudsman committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the Affidavit-Complaint dated January 6, 2003 on the ground of prescription.

RULING

The Supreme Court ruled that the Ombudsman did not commit grave abuse of discretion. The prescriptive period for violations of R.A. No. 3019 committed prior to March 16, 1982, is ten years, as per the original law. Since the loans were granted in 1969, 1970, 1973, 1975, and 1977, the ten-year period applies, not the fifteen-year period introduced by B.P. Blg. 195 in 1982, as the law more favorable to the accused governs. Under Act No. 3326 , Section 2, prescription begins to run from the day of the commission of the violation, or if not known at the time, from the discovery thereof and the institution of judicial proceedings. Following established jurisprudence, particularly People v. Duque, for violations where the illegality is not immediately apparent, prescription begins to run only from the discovery of the unlawful nature of the acts. The Court has consistently held in behest loan cases that prescription commences from discovery, not the date of commission. The Ad Hoc Committee discovered the violations and deemed the loans behest on January 4, 1993. Therefore, the ten-year prescriptive period began to run on that date. The filing of the complaint on January 6, 2003, was beyond the ten-year period, resulting in prescription. The Ombudsman’s dismissal on this ground was correct and not attended by grave abuse of discretion. The petition was denied for lack of merit.