G.R. No. 194159 - Presidential Commission on Good Government vs. Navarro-Gutierrez

The Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG) filed an affidavit-complaint on July 15, 2003, charging former officers/directors of the Development Bank of the Philippines (DBP) and former officers/stockholders of National Galleon Shipping Corporation (Galleon) with violations of Sections 3 (e) and (g) of Republic Act No. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act). Respondents included Don M. Ferry, Jose R. Tengco, Jr., Rolando M. Zosa, Cesar C. Zalamea, Ofelia I. Castell, Rafael A. Sison, Rodolfo M. Cuenca, Manuel I. Tinio, and Antonio R. Roque.

President Fidel V. Ramos created a Presidential Ad Hoc Fact-Finding Committee on Behest Loans through Administrative Order No. 13 (October 8, 1992) to identify anomalous behest loans.
Memorandum Order No. 61 (November 9, 1992) set criteria for determining whether a loan is behest in nature, including undercollateralization, undercapitalization, crony stockholders, marginal notes by high officials, among others.
The Ad Hoc Committee, with the Technical Working Group (TWG), examined loan accounts extended by GFIs to corporations during President Marcos’ regime, focusing on a loan granted by DBP to Galleon.

DBP’s Board Resolution No. 3002 (September 19, 1979) approved guarantees amounting to US$90,280,000 to secure Galleon’s foreign currency borrowings for vessel acquisition.
Board Resolution No. 3002 stated the transaction was undertaken “at the behest of the Philippine Government.”
Conditioned on increasing paid-up capital to P98.963 million by 1981, which Galleon failed to comply with, raising only P46,740,755.00.
DBP nonetheless granted guarantees despite non-compliance and growing arrearages (P40,684,059.37 as of June 30, 1981).
Further accommodations via Board Resolutions Nos. 4008 and 3001 were approved despite arrearages and collateral deficiencies.
Galleon’s obligations ballooned to P2,039,284,390.85 as of March 31, 1984, with collaterals valued only at P539 million.

PCGG filed charges for violations of RA 3019 based on the findings deeming the loans “behest loans.”
Among the respondents, Roque, Zalamea, Tengco, and Castell filed counter-affidavits denying participation; others failed to file responses despite notice.
Roque denied being a crony, claiming minority shareholding without influence.
Zalamea claimed lack of participation as he joined DBP after the transactions and raised prescription of charges.
Tengco cited prescription and exercised sound business judgment at board level.
Castell claimed no authority to approve loan transactions, only supervisory duties.

The Office of the Ombudsman issued a Resolution (May 30, 2007) dismissing the complaint for lack of probable cause, considering evidence mostly hearsay and self-serving executive summaries with no direct proof of illegal transactions.
PCGG’s motion for reconsideration was denied by the Ombudsman Order dated April 13, 2009.
PCGG elevated the matter to the Court, assailing the dismissal for grave abuse of discretion.

Whether the Office of the Ombudsman gravely abused its discretion in dismissing the affidavit-complaint for lack of probable cause to charge respondents with violations of Sections 3 (e) and (g) of RA 3019.