G.R. No. 217417 - People vs. Reynaldo G. David, Roberto Ongpin, Josephine Manalo, Ma. Lourdes Torres, Patricia Sto. Tomas, Alexander Magno, Floro Oliveros, Miguel Romero, Edgardo Garcia, Armando Samia, Rolando Geronimo, Perla Soleta, Jesus Guevara II, Cresenciana Bundoc, Arturo Baliton, Franklin Velarde, Joseph Pangili, Nelson Macatlang, Marissa Cayetano, Renato Velasco, Ramon Durano IV, Benedicto Bitonio Jr., Ma. Teresita Tolentino, Rodolfo Cerezo, Warren De Guzman.

The Development Bank of the Philippines (DBP), a government-owned bank established under Executive Order No. 81 (1986) and amended by RA 8523, filed a Complaint-Affidavit before the Office of the Ombudsman against several DBP officials and officers, including Reynaldo G. David (President/CEO), Patricia A. Sto. Tomas (Chairman), and others, along with private individuals Roberto V. Ongpin, Josephine A. Manalo, and Ma. Lourdes A. Torres of Deltaventures Resources, Inc. (DVRI).
DVRI is a real estate corporation with a paid-up capital of PHP 625,000.00, managed by Ongpin (GM), Manalo (President), and Torres (Treasurer).

The complaint concerned two loans granted by DBP to DVRI in April and November 2009 amounting to PHP 660,000,000.00 in total (PHP 150,000,000.00 and PHP 510,000,000.00).
DBP alleged the following violations by its officials:

Granting behest loans to DVRI despite doubtful capacity to repay.
Violations of banking laws, regulations, and DBP policies.
Granting unwarranted waivers favoring Ongpin.
Acting with bad faith, partiality, and conspiring with DVRI officials to consummate the loan transactions.

A preliminary investigation was conducted, after which probable cause was found to charge certain DBP officials and DVRI officers for violating Section 3(e) of RA 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act).
The Ombudsman dismissed charges against some officials due to insufficient evidence.
The accused moved for reconsideration, which was denied by the Ombudsman.

Two Informations (SB-13-CRM-0105 and SB-13-CRM-0106) were filed before the Sandiganbayan charging the accused with giving unwarranted benefits and advantages to DVRI in violation of Section 3(e) of RA 3019.
Various motions were filed by the accused seeking judicial determination of probable cause and motions to quash on grounds including:

Facts charged do not constitute an offense (lack of undue injury or behest nature).
Loans were fully paid, adequately secured, and complied with banking policies.

The Office of the Special Prosecutor (OSP) filed consolidated oppositions arguing that the Informations sufficiently alleged the elements of the crime and that the other defenses are matters for trial.

The Sandiganbayan ruled in a 3-2 vote to grant the motions to quash and dismissed the cases, finding no evident bad faith, manifest partiality, or unwarranted benefits due to full payment of the loans.
Two justices dissented, arguing the dismissal was premature, contradicting prior probable cause findings, and an improper evaluation of evidence.
Reconsideration was filed by the prosecution but denied again in the same vote split, with dissenting opinions reaffirming prior points.

The Supreme Court took cognizance of the case on a Petition for Review on Certiorari.
During the pendency, three accused – Miguel L. Romero, Reynaldo G. David, and Roberto V. Ongpin – died and their deaths were acknowledged by official documentation and media reports.

Whether the Sandiganbayan erred in granting the accused’s motions to quash and dismissing the criminal cases against them.
Whether the facts alleged in the Informations sufficiently constitute the offense under Section 3(e) of RA 3019 despite the full payment of the loans by DVRI.
Whether the purported "behest" nature of the loans and attendant elements (bad faith, manifest partiality, unwarranted benefits) can be considered in a motion to quash proceeding.
The effect of the death of accused prior to final judgment on the continuation of the criminal cases against them.