Case Summary (G.R. No. 106705)
Background of the Case
The civil action for certiorari and prohibition was initiated by petitioners Ingco, Magboo, and Alcasid to nullify resolutions issued by the Sandiganbayan on October 7, 1993, and November 8, 1993, denying their motion to quash an information for violating the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. The charges stemmed from their involvement in facilitating loans from the Philippine National Bank (PNB) to Cresta Monte Shipping Corporation, alleged to have been approved without proper guarantees and assessments, thereby causing undue injury to the government.
Nature of Loans and Allegations
The controversy arose over loan accommodations totaling US$13.4 million extended to Cresta Monte Shipping Corporation, secured by guarantees from the National Investment Development Corporation (NIDC), which is a wholly-owned subsidiary of PNB. The loans' approval process allegedly bypassed necessary due diligence, as the loans were granted despite the absence of a project feasibility study and adverse credit assessments. The petitioners were accused of conspiring to circumvent these protocols, leading to manifestly disadvantageous terms for the government.
Motion to Quash and Sandiganbayan's Initial Ruling
Petitioners filed a motion to quash the information on grounds that the alleged facts did not constitute an offense and that the case had prescribed. The Sandiganbayan dismissed this motion, leading to the present appeal. The core issues presented for review revolve around the legal sufficiency of the information and the argument of prescription of the offenses charged.
Ruling on Prescription of the Offense
The court affirmed the Sandiganbayan's decision that the offense had not prescribed. It clarified that the prescriptive period for the alleged offense, which was ten years, was effectively suspended by the earlier complaint filed on May 26, 1987, with the Ombudsman. The relevant jurisprudence confirmed that filing a complaint with the Ombudsman interrupts the limitation period applicable under the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.
Assessment of the Facts Against Applicable Law
The Sandiganbayan found that the claims made in the information constituted violations of Section 3(e) and Section 3(g) of Republic Act No. 3019, as they indicated evident bad faith and actions that caused undue injury to the government. The allegations were found sufficient to establish the necessary elements of the offense, including the petitioners' roles in the loan processes and implications for public interest.
Petitioner's Defense and Court's Conclusion
Ingco defended against the charges, claiming that his role was limited to recommending loans based on assessments condu
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 106705)
Case Overview
- The case involves a civil action of certiorari and prohibition filed by petitioners Domingo Ingco, Ernesto Magboo, and Herminio Alcasid against the Sandiganbayan.
- The petition seeks to nullify the resolutions dated October 7, 1993, and November 8, 1993, which denied the petitioners' motion to quash the information and their motion for reconsideration.
- The primary legal issue pertains to the alleged violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act (Republic Act No. 3019).
Background of the Case
- The case originated when Domingo Ingco, former Senior Vice-President of the Philippine National Bank (PNB), was accused along with Magboo and Alcasid of conspiring to secure behest loans for Cresta Monte Shipping Corporation.
- The loans in question were for $5.91 million and $7.5 million, granted under alleged disadvantageous conditions without proper feasibility studies or sufficient collateral.
Factual Findings
- Cresta Monte Shipping Corporation is a domestic corporation established in 1976, focused on shipping operations.
- Ingco was charged with conspiring with Cresta Monte officials, including Magboo and Alcasid, by recommending loan approvals despite the company's weak financial standing and lack of required documentation.
- The loans were secured by guarantees from the National Investment and Development Corporation (NIDC), which is a subsidiary of PNB, raising questions about the legitimacy of the collateral.