Case Digest (G.R. No. 135350)
Facts:
The Presidential Ad Hoc Fact-Finding Committee on Behest Loans, represented by Felix M. De Guzman, PCGG Chairman, Orlando L. Salvador, Consultant, Technical Working Group (TWG) of the Presidential Ad Hoc Fact-Finding Committee on Behest Loans (FFCBL) and Danilo R. V. Daniel, TWG Coordinator, FFCBL, Petitioner, vs. The Honorable Ombudsman, Aniano Desierto, Aniceto Evangelista, Julio V. Macuja, Anos Fonacier and Mariano Zamora, G.R. No. 135350, March 03, 2006, the Supreme Court First Division, Callejo, Sr., J., writing for the Court.Petitioner Committee was created by Administrative Order No. 13 (Oct. 8, 1992) and its mandate broadened by Memorandum Order No. 61 (Nov. 9, 1992) to investigate alleged "behest" and other non-performing loans. The Committee examined various loan files, including the DBP–Bayview Plaza Hotel, Inc. (BPHI) transactions, and concluded these bore the characteristics of a behest loan (undercollateralization, undercapitalization, marginal notes showing presidential endorsement, reduction of deficiency claims, and substantial loan reductions). The Committee traced a DBP foreclosure acquisition (Dec. 5, 1972), a DBP Board Resolution dropping a deficiency claim (B/R No. 842, Mar. 29, 1978), and a marginal-note approval by then President Marcos reducing UHTDC obligations (Jan. 3, 1977).
On June 11, 1997 the Committee, through a sworn statement by Orlando Salvador, filed with the Office of the Ombudsman a criminal complaint for violations of Sections 3(e) and 3(g) of Republic Act No. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act) against respondents Aniceto Evangelista, Julio Macuja, Gregorio Licaros, Anos Fonacier, Mariano Zamora and Esperanza Zamora. The Ombudsman dismissed the complaint on September 30, 1997 (OMB-0-97-1059) on the ground of prescription, reasoning that the acts occurred in 1967, 1977 and 1978 and that under the law then in force (old RA 3019 and Act No. 3326, Sec. 2) the prescriptive period began to run from the day of commission; a motion for reconsideration was denied (Aug. 21, 1998).
Petitioner Committee filed a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 to this Court, challenging the Ombudsman’s dismissal (arguing the “discovery rule” should apply and prescriptive period should run from discovery because the unlawful nature of the transactions was concealed). While the petition was pending, this Court in a related case, Presidential Ad Hoc Fact-Finding Committee on Behest Loans v. Desierto (G.R. No. 130140, 375 Phil. 697 (1999)), resolved that, in similar behest-loan circumstances, prescription runs from discovery and directed the Ombudsman to proceed with preliminary investigation. The Ombudsman thus reopened and conducted preliminary investigation int...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Was the petition properly filed under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court?
- Is the present petition moot and academic so as to warrant dismissal by the Court?
- Have the offenses charged prescribed, and if so, should the prescriptive period be reckoned from the date of commission or from ...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)