FACTS:

The present case involves two separate petitions filed by Gregorio Singian, Jr. and Panfilo O. Domingo, both challenging the resolutions and orders of the Sandiganbayan.

In the case of Gregorio Singian, Jr., he was named as one of the individuals involved in the loan transactions of Integrated Shoe, Inc. (ISI) granted by the Philippine National Bank (PNB). The loans were found to exhibit characteristics of behest loans, lacking sufficient collaterals and being obtained hastily. Atty. Salvador, a consultant of the Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG), filed a complaint against various individuals, including Singian, with the Office of the Ombudsman. The complaint was recommended for dismissal by Investigator Navales due to prescription and insufficiency of evidence, and the Director of the EPIB approved the findings. Singian filed a petition before the Supreme Court, assailing the dismissal of his motion for the re-determination of probable cause.

In the case of Panfilo O. Domingo, he is one of the accused in criminal cases involving loan accommodations granted to Infrastructure Services, Inc. (ISI), which allegedly violated the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. The Office of the Ombudsman conducted an investigation and recommended the indictment of Domingo and his co-accused. The recommendations were approved by some officials but disapproved by Deputy Special Prosecutor Kallos. The Ombudsman eventually approved the recommendations, leading to the filing of Informations against Domingo. He filed a motion for reinvestigation, claiming improper notification and an erroneous address. The Sandiganbayan granted the motion and ordered a reinvestigation, resulting in recommendations for exoneration by Prosecutor Ferrer. However, Ombudsman Marcelo disapproved these recommendations. Domingo filed a Motion for Re-determination of Existence of Probable Cause, which was denied, and a subsequent motion for reconsideration was also denied. He then filed a petition for certiorari before the Supreme Court, arguing that the Sandiganbayan committed grave abuse of discretion. Domingo disputes the claim of the loans being behest loans and asserts that there were additional securities given by ISI.

Both cases involve challenges to the resolutions of the Sandiganbayan and the petitioners' assertions of lack of liability in relation to the charges brought against them.

ISSUES:

1. Whether or not the petitioner can be held liable for violating Sections 3(e) and (g) of R.A. 3019.

2. Whether or not the ruling of the Sandiganbayan that the petitioner is criminally responsible for ISI's failure to put up additional capitalization and collaterals is inconsistent with its finding that the petitioner is neither a stockholder nor a director of the company.

3. Whether or not there is evidence that the petitioner was part of any conspiracy relative to the evaluation and grant of the loans subject of the criminal cases before the Sandiganbayan.

4. Whether the loan transaction with ISI was manifestly and grossly disadvantageous to the government.

5. Whether the loan was under-collateralized.

6. Whether there was sufficient evidence to prove that ISI had low capital.

7. Whether the petitioner can be held criminally liable for ISI's failure to comply with the undertaking.

8. Whether the officers of a corporation can be criminally liable for their acts even if the power to secure indebtedness is lodged with the board of directors.

9. Whether there is probable cause to hold the petitioner liable for his participation in the loan transactions.

RULING:

1. The Court refused to interfere with the discretion of the Ombudsman in finding probable cause to indict the petitioner. The Court held that the act of the Ombudsman in finding probable cause is an exercise of constitutional powers and should not be interfered with, unless there is grave abuse of discretion.

2. The Court also refused to interfere with the discretion of the Sandiganbayan in finding probable cause against the petitioner. The Court emphasized that absent grave abuse of discretion, it cannot interfere with the Sandiganbayan's discretion.

3. The Court found that there was no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the Ombudsman and the Sandiganbayan. The Court held that the charges against the petitioner were not premised solely on his co-accused being known cronies of President Marcos. The elements of the offenses under Section 3(e) and (g) of R.A. 3019 were present, and being a crony of President Marcos is not an indispensable criterion for indictment and conviction of these offenses.

4. The Court found that the prosecution's allegation that the loan transaction with ISI was manifestly and grossly disadvantageous to the government was a matter of defense that should be resolved in a full-blown trial.

5. The Court held that the loan was under-collateralized based on the fact that ISI failed to put up additional collaterals and raise its working capital. The securities offered by ISI were not considered sufficient collateral.

6. The Court rejected the petitioner's argument that there was insufficient evidence to prove ISI's low capital. The petitioner's reliance on a previous case was deemed misplaced, as the circumstances of the present case were different.

7. The Court acknowledged that increasing capitalization and offering collateral are powers within the board of directors' authority. However, the petitioner, as an Executive Vice President of ISI, affixed his signature to the undertaking, thereby binding himself to its provisions. Thus, he can be held criminally liable for ISI's failure to comply with the undertaking.

8. Yes, the officers of a corporation can be criminally liable for their acts even if the power to secure indebtedness is lodged with the board of directors. The officers can be made criminally liable if it can be proven that they participated in the criminal acts.

9. Yes, there is probable cause to hold the petitioner liable for his participation in the loan transactions. The evidence shows that the petitioner participated in the loan transactions when he signed the undertaking. The circumstances surrounding the granting of the loan transactions appear to be connected with each other and part of a design to prejudice the government. The absence of conspiracy among the accused is evidentiary in nature and can be determined after a full trial on the merits.

PRINCIPLES:

• The Court does not interfere with the discretion of the Ombudsman and the Sandiganbayan in finding probable cause, absent grave abuse of discretion.

• Grave abuse of discretion is the capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment by a public officer, which is equivalent to an excess or lack of jurisdiction.

• Being a crony of a previous president is not an indispensable criterion for indictment and conviction of offenses under R.A. 3019. The elements of the offenses must be present for an indictment and conviction.

• The determination of whether a loan transaction is disadvantageous to the government is a matter of defense that should be resolved in a full-blown trial.

• The sufficiency of collateral in a loan transaction is based on the specific circumstances of each case.

• A party's liability can be established based on their participation and the obligations they have assumed in a contract or undertaking.

• The authority to increase capitalization and offer collateral lies with the board of directors, but this does not absolve other officers from their obligations assuming in contracts or undertakings.

• Corporate officers can be criminally liable for their acts even if the power to secure indebtedness is lodged with the board of directors.

• The absence of conspiracy among the accused is evidentiary in nature and can be determined after a full trial on the merits.