G.R. No. 131966 - Republic vs. Desierto

The case involves the motions for reconsideration filed by private respondent Eduardo M. Cojuangco, Jr. and the petitioner, Republic of the Philippines.
The earlier decision of the Court dated September 23, 2002, had granted the petition for certiorari filed by the Republic, set aside the Ombudsman's resolution (OMB-0-90-2811) which had dismissed the Republic’s complaint, and ordered the Ombudsman to proceed with the preliminary investigation.
There is a separate record entry by the counsel of the late Maria Clara L. Lobregat, notifying the Court of her demise on January 2, 2004, and praying for the dismissal of the proceedings against her.

The Ombudsman's dismissal was due to lack of evidence or probable cause—not because the offense had prescribed or that LOI No. 926 along with PD Nos. 961 and 1468 precluded prosecution under RA No. 3019 and Article 186 of the Revised Penal Code.
The Court’s decision of September 23, 2002, did not address the finding of lack of probable cause; thus, the earlier Ombudsman Resolution of June 2, 1997, should not be nullified.
There was no evidentiary basis for the Court’s finding that the offense had not prescribed.
The Court erred in concluding that PD Nos. 961 and 1468 and LOI No. 926 were not relevant in determining if respondents had violated RA No. 3019 and Article 186.
His constitutional right to a speedy disposition was violated by the seven-year delay in the preliminary investigation, warranting dismissal of the case.

The Republic challenged the Court’s ruling that resulted in the exclusion of certain respondents (specifically Teodoro D. Regala and Jose C. Concepcion) as defendants in the complaint.
It argued that those excluded should be held accountable as they were implicated for illegal acts committed in their official capacity as members of the Board of Directors of UNICOM and UCPB in conspiracy with the private respondents.

The Ombudsman's investigation concluded that although there was sufficient ground to believe that violations of the Anti-Graft Law might have occurred, the acquisition by UNICOM of the sixteen oil mills was done in accordance with existent laws.
The Court noted that:

Legal instruments such as LOI No. 926 and PD Nos. 961 and 1468 authorized the acquisition but did not immunize private respondents from criminal prosecution.
Even transactions legally sanctioned can be subject to criminal liability if they resulted in manifestly disadvantageous and prejudicial outcomes for the government and if personal gain or material interests are evident.

The complaint was determined to have been filed well within the ten-year prescriptive period relevant under Section 2 of Act No. 3326—as supported by precedents (e.g., Domingo vs. Sandiganbayan).
The Court also detailed that the historical inaction of respondents, particularly the failure to assert the right to speedy disposition during the delay (exemplified by no filings between 1991 and the Ombudsman's Resolution in 1997), constituted a waiver of such a right.
Precedents such as Dela PeAa vs. Sandiganbayan and the Orosa case (though later set aside for specific procedural issues) were cited to support the balance between public justice and individual rights.
The death of respondent Maria Clara L. Lobregat terminated any criminal and civil liability arising solely from the pending case against her.

Whether the decision dismissing the complaint in resolution OMB-0-90-2811 was premised solely on lack of evidence/probable cause or if it should have been reconsidered in light of the statutory prescription.

Whether LOI No. 926 and PD Nos. 961 and 1468 can serve as a shield against criminal prosecution for violations of RA No. 3019 and Article 186 of the Revised Penal Code.

Whether the alleged offense had prescribed considering the filing dates and applicable prescriptive periods.

Whether the seven-year delay in the preliminary investigation violated the constitutional guarantee of speedy disposition.
Whether the respondents’ inaction during the period in question should be construed as a waiver of their right.

Whether respondents Teodoro D. Regala and Jose C. Concepcion should be excluded as defendants given their alleged roles in the transactions and in their capacity as members of the Board of Directors.

The legal consequences of the death of Maria Clara L. Lobregat on the ongoing proceedings and the liabilities involved.