Case Summary (G.R. No. 212269)
Background of the Case
The complaint leading to this petition was initiated by the PCGG, which accused the respondents of violation of Sections 3(e) and (g) of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act (Republic Act No. 3019). The allegations stem from a loan of US$20 million approved by PNB to Marbella, allegedly facilitated through connivance and without due process, which disadvantageously affected the government. The Ombudsman, however, found no probable cause to prosecute the individuals involved.
Ombudsman's Initial Findings
In its August 24, 2012 Resolution, the Ombudsman determined that while the statute of limitations had not expired, there was insufficient evidence of bad faith or negligence on the part of the respondents to justify criminal charges. The Ombudsman emphasized that the loan approvals were done through the proper channels and with adequate financial assessments confirming Marbella's viability as a borrower.
Legal Arguments Presented
The PCGG sought the Supreme Court's review, claiming that the Ombudsman's decision was flawed due to a lack of recognition of the irregularities in the loan process, which included the alleged endorsement of high government officials and the disadvantageous nature of the contracts entered into by PNB. They argued that these factors indicated a behest loan, which is a loan granted without standard banking practices and against the interest of the government.
Respondents' Defenses
The respondents countered the allegations by asserting that the approvals for Marbella’s loans were consistent with acceptable banking practices. They provided evidence of Marbella's incorporation as a legitimate entity with substantial capital. The defenses highlighted the procedural regularities followed by PNB and the absence of any unlawful endorsements or benefits extended to Marbella.
Ombudsman's Rebuttal of PCGG's Claims
The Ombudsman maintained its dismissal based on its scrutiny of the evidence and reiterated that Marbella was not a fictional entity but a duly recognized corporation with government backing for its projects. The Ombudsman reasoned that the financial decisions made were within the purview of sound business judgment and were not indicative of bad faith or partiality.
Supreme Court's Position
The Supreme Court, in evaluating the case, emphasized the principle of non-interference with the Ombudsman’s investigatory and prosecutorial powers
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 212269)
Case Overview
- The case involves a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court challenging the August 24, 2012 Resolution and the October 9, 2012 Order of the Office of the Ombudsman.
- The Ombudsman dismissed a complaint for violation of Section 3(e) and (g) of Republic Act No. 3019 or the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.
- The petitioner, the Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG), argues that the Ombudsman acted with grave abuse of discretion.
Antecedents of the Case
- The complaint arose from an Affidavit-Complaint filed by the PCGG, represented by Atty. Virgilio P.A. Ocaya.
- Respondents included high-ranking officials in government and the Philippine National Bank (PNB) associated with the Marbella Club Manila Incorporated.
- The complaint alleges that a series of loans extended to Marbella were granted with manifest partiality and bad faith, violating anti-graft laws.
Summary of Allegations
- The PCGG claims that in 1979, Marbella received a Letter of Guaranty from the National Investment and Development Corporation (NIDC) for a US$20 million loan.
- The loan was approved despite Marbella not owning the land for its intended tourism project at that time.
- It is alleged that PNB advanced funds to Marbella when it defaulted on its interest payments, highlighting a pattern of poor credit risk and negligence.
Ombudsman’s Findings and Rationale
- The Ombudsman concluded that the alleged offenses had already prescribed, referencing a 15-year prescription period from the discovery of the violations i