October 2009 - Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2009 > October 2009 Resolutions >
[G.R. No. 135774 : October 19, 2009] THE PRESIDENTIAL AD HOC FACT FINDING COMMITTEE ON BEHEST LOANS, REPRESENTED BY THE PRESIDENTIAL COMMISSION ON GOOD GOVERNMENT V. THE HONORABLE OMBUDSMAN ANIANO DESIERTO, PLACIDO MAPA, ORLANDO PINEDA, JESUS ESTANISLAO, CAYETANO FERRERIA, JAIME ABRAHAM, PEDRO ATIENZA, ANTONIO TIONGSON, VICENTE NAVALES:
[G.R. No. 135774 : October 19, 2009]
THE PRESIDENTIAL AD HOC FACT FINDING COMMITTEE ON BEHEST LOANS, REPRESENTED BY THE PRESIDENTIAL COMMISSION ON GOOD GOVERNMENT V. THE HONORABLE OMBUDSMAN ANIANO DESIERTO, PLACIDO MAPA, ORLANDO PINEDA, JESUS ESTANISLAO, CAYETANO FERRERIA, JAIME ABRAHAM, PEDRO ATIENZA, ANTONIO TIONGSON, VICENTE NAVALES
Sirs/Mesdames:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated 19 October 2009:
G.R. No. 135774 (The Presidential Ad Hoc Fact Finding Committee on Behest Loans, represented by the Presidential Commission on Good Government v. The Honorable Ombudsman Aniano Desierto, Placido Mapa, Orlando Pineda, Jesus Estanislao, Cayetano Ferreria, Jaime Abraham, Pedro Atienza, Antonio Tiongson, Vicente Navales).
This is a petition for review on certiorari of the Resolution [1] dated May 21, 1998 of the Office of the Ombudsman in OMB-0-98-056L dismissing the criminal complaint for violation of Section 3 (e) and (g) of Republic Act (R.A.) 3019[2] against respondents J.V. De Ocampo, Placido Mapa, Orlando Pineda, Jesus Estanislao, Cayetano Ferreria, Jaime Abraham, Pedro Atienza, Antonio Tiongson, and Vicente Navales.
On October 8, 1992 then President Fidel V. Ramos issued Administrative Order 13 creating the Presidential Ad Hoc Fact Finding Committee on Behest Loans (the Committee), tasking it with the investigation, inventory and study of all non-performing loans, whether behest or non-behest.
Several accounts were referred to the Committee, including the loan transactions between the Development Bank of the Philippines (DBP) and Fil-Eastern Wood Industries, Inc. (Fil-Eastern). After investigation, the Committee found that these transactions were behest loans. They were undercollateralized at P7,923,900.00 in estimated value as against the total loan of P17,056,905.00 and Fil-Eastern had a paid-up capital of P1,000,000.00. Consequently, the Committee filed a complaint[3] with the Office of the Ombudsman against respondents De Ocampo, Mapa, Pineda and Estanislao as officers of DBP, and Ferreria, Abraham, Atienza, Tiongson, and Navales as incorporators of Fil-Eastern for violation of Section 3 (e) and (g) of R.A. 3019.
But the Ombudsman Evaluation and Preliminary Investigation Bureau recommended the dismissal of the complaint for insufficiency of evidence and prescription. It found that Fil-Eastern had enough capital and collaterals to secure the loans. Moreover, the Committee filed the complaint only on March 11, 1998 or more than 30 years after the loans were approved on November 16 and 23, 1967. Hence, the complaint is barred by prescription under Section 11[4] of R.A. 3019.
Respondent Ombudsman[5] approved the dismissal of the complaint in OMB-0-98-0561 on June 15, 1998. With the denial of its motion for reconsideration, the Committee came to this Court via a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 but the Court will treat it like a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 since the Committee imputes grave abuse of discretion to the Ombudsman for dismissing the complaint against respondents.[6]
The key issue in this case is whether or not the Ombudsman gravely abused his discretion in dismissing the complaint on grounds of prescription and insufficiency of evidence.
The question of prescription has long been settled in several cases on alleged violations of R.A. 3019 committed during the Marcos presidency. With respect to behest loans, in particular, the State could not have known of the violations when the loan transactions were made. For one, the public officials allegedly conspired with the loan beneficiaries. Also, no one would have dared question the legality of the transactions at that time. Thus, the prescriptive period should be computed from the date of discovery of the offenses and not from the date of their commission.[7]
Here, the Committee did not specify in its complaint the dates when the alleged offenses were discovered. It may be assumed, however, that the discovery could not have been earlier than October 8, 1992 when the Committee was created to investigate non-performing loans.[8] Since the complaint was filed on March 11, 1998, the offenses had not yet prescribed.
But while the Ombudsman erred in dismissing the complaint on ground of prescription, the Court finds that he committed no grave abuse of discretion in doing so on ground of insufficiency of evidence.
The prosecution of offenses committed by public officers is vested in the Ombudsman. As a rule, the Court will interfere with the exercise of his powers only where grave abuse of discretion attended the same.[9] If, as in this case,substantial evidence supports his ruling, the Court will not overturn his decision.[10]
In dismissing the Committee's complaint, the Ombudsman found that the loans were secured by: a) a 21,056 sq m commercial land in Quezon City with an appraised value of P11,580,800.00 as of May 1977; b) Palawan properties with an appraised value of P14,847,800.00 as of 1974; c) Angono, Rizal properties with an appraised value of P7,131,000.00 as of 1974, which increased to P12,556,800.00 as of 1976; and d) paid-up capital of P250,000.00.[11] In addition, the Ombudsman took into account the other collateralized properties, namely; a) machinery and equipment worth P12,386,070.00; b) land in Paco, Manila, worth P1,062,710.00; c) nine (9) tugboats and barges valued at P1,620,100.00; and d) the assignment of Fil-Eastern's timber license and special permit for its concession area to DBP. [12] Since these above properties were clearly worth more than the total loan amount of P17,056,905.00, it cannot be said that such loans were undercollateralized.
The Committee insists, however, that the Ombudsman cannot rely on the appraised value of the properties in 1977 since the loans were granted 10 years earlier when they were worth much less. But the Committee for its part failed to show that the properties in 1967 were of such little value to warrant a conclusion that the loans were undercollateralized. Indeed, the complaint shows that the Committee considered only the Palawan properties in its assessment and ignored all others which were offered as additional securities.[13] Had it bothered to ascertain the value of these additional securities, it would have realized that Fil-Eastern had enough collaterals as the Ombudsman had found.
The Committee also claims that the loans were approved with undue haste. But, in Presidential Ad Hoc Fact-Finding Committee on Behest Loans v. Ombudsman Desierto,[14] the Court held that even an.approval made within 27 days cannot be reasonably considered a sign of manifest partiality or evident bad faith as long as there was full compliance with banking laws and procedures. The same can be said here where the loan applications were processed within two months, with several departments of DBP and the Central Bank evaluating the applications since they entailed foreign currency drawings from sources outside the Philippines.[15]
Besides, the Committee failed to specify the participation of each of the several respondents charged with violations of R.A. 3019. Was there proof that they conspired with each other to cause undue injury to the government by giving unwarranted benefits to Fil-Eastem? These elements are necessary for the successful prosecution of the offenses charged.
Pineda, Ferreria, and Tiongson have in fact been dropped from this case as party-respondents in the Court's resolutions dated May 31, 2004[16] and November 13, 2006.[17] The Committee admitted that Pineda was not employed with DBP at the time the alleged offenses were committed,[18] while Fen-eria's and Tiongson's present addresses could not be located.
The Court also notes that respondent Navales is deceased per information of the Committee.[19] Meanwhile, respondent Estanislao claims to have joined DBP only after the 1986 EDSA Revolution, specifically from 1986-1989.[20] As for respondent Mapa, he says that he had been granted transactional immunity from all PCGG initiated civil cases, criminal proceedings and investigations by virtue of an agreement dated May 16, 1990 with PCGG.[21] The Committee has not refuted Estanislao's and Mapa's claims to date.
In sum, there is no basis for respondents' prosecution under R.A. 3019. The Court finds that the Ombudsman did not abuse his discretion in ordering the dismissal of the complaint for insufficiency of evidence.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DISMISSED. The assailed resolution dated May 21, 1998 and order dated August 28, 1998 of the Office of the Ombudsman in OMB-0-98-0561 are AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.
WITNESS the Honorable Leonardo A. Quisumbing, Chairperson, Honorable Antonio T. Carpio (designated additional member per S.O. No. 757 in lieu of Del Castillo, J., on leave), Conchita Carpio Morales, Arturo D. Brion and Roberto A. Abad, Members, Second Division, this 19th day of October, 2009.
G.R. No. 135774 (The Presidential Ad Hoc Fact Finding Committee on Behest Loans, represented by the Presidential Commission on Good Government v. The Honorable Ombudsman Aniano Desierto, Placido Mapa, Orlando Pineda, Jesus Estanislao, Cayetano Ferreria, Jaime Abraham, Pedro Atienza, Antonio Tiongson, Vicente Navales).
This is a petition for review on certiorari of the Resolution [1] dated May 21, 1998 of the Office of the Ombudsman in OMB-0-98-056L dismissing the criminal complaint for violation of Section 3 (e) and (g) of Republic Act (R.A.) 3019[2] against respondents J.V. De Ocampo, Placido Mapa, Orlando Pineda, Jesus Estanislao, Cayetano Ferreria, Jaime Abraham, Pedro Atienza, Antonio Tiongson, and Vicente Navales.
On October 8, 1992 then President Fidel V. Ramos issued Administrative Order 13 creating the Presidential Ad Hoc Fact Finding Committee on Behest Loans (the Committee), tasking it with the investigation, inventory and study of all non-performing loans, whether behest or non-behest.
Several accounts were referred to the Committee, including the loan transactions between the Development Bank of the Philippines (DBP) and Fil-Eastern Wood Industries, Inc. (Fil-Eastern). After investigation, the Committee found that these transactions were behest loans. They were undercollateralized at P7,923,900.00 in estimated value as against the total loan of P17,056,905.00 and Fil-Eastern had a paid-up capital of P1,000,000.00. Consequently, the Committee filed a complaint[3] with the Office of the Ombudsman against respondents De Ocampo, Mapa, Pineda and Estanislao as officers of DBP, and Ferreria, Abraham, Atienza, Tiongson, and Navales as incorporators of Fil-Eastern for violation of Section 3 (e) and (g) of R.A. 3019.
But the Ombudsman Evaluation and Preliminary Investigation Bureau recommended the dismissal of the complaint for insufficiency of evidence and prescription. It found that Fil-Eastern had enough capital and collaterals to secure the loans. Moreover, the Committee filed the complaint only on March 11, 1998 or more than 30 years after the loans were approved on November 16 and 23, 1967. Hence, the complaint is barred by prescription under Section 11[4] of R.A. 3019.
Respondent Ombudsman[5] approved the dismissal of the complaint in OMB-0-98-0561 on June 15, 1998. With the denial of its motion for reconsideration, the Committee came to this Court via a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 but the Court will treat it like a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 since the Committee imputes grave abuse of discretion to the Ombudsman for dismissing the complaint against respondents.[6]
The key issue in this case is whether or not the Ombudsman gravely abused his discretion in dismissing the complaint on grounds of prescription and insufficiency of evidence.
The question of prescription has long been settled in several cases on alleged violations of R.A. 3019 committed during the Marcos presidency. With respect to behest loans, in particular, the State could not have known of the violations when the loan transactions were made. For one, the public officials allegedly conspired with the loan beneficiaries. Also, no one would have dared question the legality of the transactions at that time. Thus, the prescriptive period should be computed from the date of discovery of the offenses and not from the date of their commission.[7]
Here, the Committee did not specify in its complaint the dates when the alleged offenses were discovered. It may be assumed, however, that the discovery could not have been earlier than October 8, 1992 when the Committee was created to investigate non-performing loans.[8] Since the complaint was filed on March 11, 1998, the offenses had not yet prescribed.
But while the Ombudsman erred in dismissing the complaint on ground of prescription, the Court finds that he committed no grave abuse of discretion in doing so on ground of insufficiency of evidence.
The prosecution of offenses committed by public officers is vested in the Ombudsman. As a rule, the Court will interfere with the exercise of his powers only where grave abuse of discretion attended the same.[9] If, as in this case,substantial evidence supports his ruling, the Court will not overturn his decision.[10]
In dismissing the Committee's complaint, the Ombudsman found that the loans were secured by: a) a 21,056 sq m commercial land in Quezon City with an appraised value of P11,580,800.00 as of May 1977; b) Palawan properties with an appraised value of P14,847,800.00 as of 1974; c) Angono, Rizal properties with an appraised value of P7,131,000.00 as of 1974, which increased to P12,556,800.00 as of 1976; and d) paid-up capital of P250,000.00.[11] In addition, the Ombudsman took into account the other collateralized properties, namely; a) machinery and equipment worth P12,386,070.00; b) land in Paco, Manila, worth P1,062,710.00; c) nine (9) tugboats and barges valued at P1,620,100.00; and d) the assignment of Fil-Eastern's timber license and special permit for its concession area to DBP. [12] Since these above properties were clearly worth more than the total loan amount of P17,056,905.00, it cannot be said that such loans were undercollateralized.
The Committee insists, however, that the Ombudsman cannot rely on the appraised value of the properties in 1977 since the loans were granted 10 years earlier when they were worth much less. But the Committee for its part failed to show that the properties in 1967 were of such little value to warrant a conclusion that the loans were undercollateralized. Indeed, the complaint shows that the Committee considered only the Palawan properties in its assessment and ignored all others which were offered as additional securities.[13] Had it bothered to ascertain the value of these additional securities, it would have realized that Fil-Eastern had enough collaterals as the Ombudsman had found.
The Committee also claims that the loans were approved with undue haste. But, in Presidential Ad Hoc Fact-Finding Committee on Behest Loans v. Ombudsman Desierto,[14] the Court held that even an.approval made within 27 days cannot be reasonably considered a sign of manifest partiality or evident bad faith as long as there was full compliance with banking laws and procedures. The same can be said here where the loan applications were processed within two months, with several departments of DBP and the Central Bank evaluating the applications since they entailed foreign currency drawings from sources outside the Philippines.[15]
Besides, the Committee failed to specify the participation of each of the several respondents charged with violations of R.A. 3019. Was there proof that they conspired with each other to cause undue injury to the government by giving unwarranted benefits to Fil-Eastem? These elements are necessary for the successful prosecution of the offenses charged.
Pineda, Ferreria, and Tiongson have in fact been dropped from this case as party-respondents in the Court's resolutions dated May 31, 2004[16] and November 13, 2006.[17] The Committee admitted that Pineda was not employed with DBP at the time the alleged offenses were committed,[18] while Fen-eria's and Tiongson's present addresses could not be located.
The Court also notes that respondent Navales is deceased per information of the Committee.[19] Meanwhile, respondent Estanislao claims to have joined DBP only after the 1986 EDSA Revolution, specifically from 1986-1989.[20] As for respondent Mapa, he says that he had been granted transactional immunity from all PCGG initiated civil cases, criminal proceedings and investigations by virtue of an agreement dated May 16, 1990 with PCGG.[21] The Committee has not refuted Estanislao's and Mapa's claims to date.
In sum, there is no basis for respondents' prosecution under R.A. 3019. The Court finds that the Ombudsman did not abuse his discretion in ordering the dismissal of the complaint for insufficiency of evidence.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DISMISSED. The assailed resolution dated May 21, 1998 and order dated August 28, 1998 of the Office of the Ombudsman in OMB-0-98-0561 are AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.
WITNESS the Honorable Leonardo A. Quisumbing, Chairperson, Honorable Antonio T. Carpio (designated additional member per S.O. No. 757 in lieu of Del Castillo, J., on leave), Conchita Carpio Morales, Arturo D. Brion and Roberto A. Abad, Members, Second Division, this 19th day of October, 2009.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) MA. LUISA L. LAUREA
Clerk of Court
(Sgd.) MA. LUISA L. LAUREA
Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] Rollo, pp. 700-705.
[2] The Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.
[3] Rollo, pp. 710-714.
[4] Prescription of offenses. -AH offenses punishable under this Act shall prescribe in 15 years.
[5] Hon. Aniano A. Desierto.
[6] Development Bank of the Philippines v. Go, G.R. No. 168779, September 14, 2007, 533 SCRA 460, 468-469.
[7] Salvador v. Mapa, Jr., G.R. No. 135080, November 28, 2007, 539 SCRA 34, 46; citing Presidential Ad Hoc Fact-Finding Committee on Behest Loans v. Ombudsman, G.R. No. I3S142, September 19, 2007, 533 SCRA 571, 578; Presidential Ad Hoc Fact-Finding Committee on Behest Loans v. Desierto, G.R- No. 135687, July 24, 2007, 528 SCRA 9; Presidential Commission on Good Government v. Desierto, G.R. No.139675, July 21, 2006, 496 SCRA 112; Presidential Ad Hoc Fact-Finding Committee on Behest Loans v. Ombudsman, G.R. No. 135350, March 3, 2006, 484 SCRA 16, 29; Atty. Salvador v. Hon. Desierto, 464 Phil. 988, 995-996 (2004); PAFFC on Behest Loans v. Ombudsman Desierto, 418 Phil. 715, 718-719(2001), and Presidential Ad Hoc Fact-Finding Committee on Behest Loans v. Desierto, 375 Phil. 697, 726(1999).
[8] Presidential Ad Hoc Facti-Finding Committee on Behest Loans v, Desierto, G.R. No. 145184. March 14.2008, 548 SCA 295, 306.
[9] Espinosa v. Office of the Ombudsman, 397 Phil. 829, 838 (2000).
[10] Salvador v. Desierto, supra note 7, at 997.
[11] Rollo, pp. 701-702.
[12] Id.
[13] Id. at 711.
[14] 415 Phil. 135, 144(2001).
[15] Rollo, p. 707.
[16] Id. at 490.
[17] Id. at p. 523.
[18] Id. at 356-359.
[19] Id. at 218.
[20] Id. at 474.
[21] Id. at 251-254.
