Case Summary (G.R. No. L-9110)
Factual Background
Incorporated on April 25, 1977, UNICOM had an initial authorized capital stock of PHP 100 million. By September 18, 1979, UNICOM had undergone several amendments to its capitalization structure, significantly increasing its authorized capital stock to one billion shares. At the same time, the UCPB’s board of directors authorized a substantial investment from the Coconut Industry Investment Fund into UNICOM, raising concerns about the propriety of these transactions given the immense capital involved relative to UNICOM's operational history. The Office of the Solicitor General filed a complaint in March 1990 against the board of directors at the time of these actions for alleged violations of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.
The Legal Framework
The principal law under scrutiny is Republic Act No. 3019, which outlines various corrupt practices by public officials. Specifically, Section 3(e) prohibits causing undue injury to any party, including the government, through actions of manifest partiality, evident bad faith, or gross inexcusable negligence. The prescriptive period for such offenses, prior to amendments in 1982, was set at 10 years.
Issue of Prescription
The core issue presented before the Court was whether the prosecution for the alleged violations had already prescribed by the time the complaint was filed. The respondents argued that the 10-year prescriptive period began upon the commission of the offense, which they contended occurred when UNICOM filed its amended articles of incorporation on February 8, 1980, effectively leading to the expiration of the complaint timeline before it was filed in March 1990.
Court’s Analysis and Ruling
The Court noted procedural irregularities in the filing of the complaint and whether it was appropriate to consider the petition as a remedy given the circumstances of the case. It underscored that the prescriptive period’s computation is crucial in determining whether the state retains the right to prosecute. While the petitioner argued that discovery of the offense post-1986 EDSA Revolution should apply, the Court highlighted that the transaction was public knowledge and that the SEC documentation made relevant details readily available prior to that period.
The ruling held that the actions of the respondents must be regarded as having reached public knowledge due to the amendments filed and, thus, the prescriptive period commence
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. L-9110)
Case Overview
- Court: Supreme Court of the Philippines
- Date: June 26, 2012
- G.R. No.: 139930
- Petitioner: Republic of the Philippines
- Respondents: Eduardo M. Cojuangco, Jr., Juan Ponce Enrile, Maria Clara Lobregat, Jose Eleazar, Jr., Jose Concepcion, Rolando P. Dela Cuesta, Emmanuel M. Almeda, Hermenegildo C. Zayco, Narciso M. Pineda, IAAKI R. Mendezona, Danilo S. Ursua, Teodoro D. Regala, Victor P. Lazatin, Eleazar B. Reyes, Eduardo U. Escueta, Leo J. Palma, Douglas Lu Ym, Sigfredo Veloso, Jaime Gandiaga
Background of the Case
- The case revolves around the government's attempt to recover ill-gotten wealth acquired during the Marcos regime, focusing on the issue of prescription related to a complaint filed against several high-profile individuals regarding their involvement with the United Coconut Oil Mills, Inc. (UNICOM).
- The investment by the United Coconut Planters Bank (UCPB) in UNICOM raised allegations of undue benefits and gross disadvantage to the government.
Facts of the Case
Incorporation of UNICOM:
- UNICOM was incorporated on April 25, 1977, with an authorized capital of P100 million.
- Respondents subscribed to 200,000 shares worth P20 million, initially paying P5 million.
- Capital amendments occurred in 1978 and 1979, significantly altering the share structure and benefits to the incorporators.
UCPB’s Investment:
- On August 29, 1979, the UCPB Board approved a resolution to invest up to P500 million in UNICOM for coconut farmers' benefit.
- Subsequent capital increases and share conversions occurred, l