View full case

FFCBL v. OMBUDSMAN DESIERTO

FACTS:

This case involves a certiorari and mandamus petition filed by the Presidential Ad Hoc Committee on Behest Loans, accusing the Romualdez family of violating the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. The committee alleged that the loan transactions between Agretronics, Incorporated and the Development Bank of the Philippines (DBP) possessed characteristics of a behest loan. The Ombudsman dismissed the complaint on grounds of lack of probable cause and prescription of the offense.

The loan transaction in question is between DBP and Agretronics, Inc., a corporation owned by the Romualdez family. The Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG), the petitioner, argues that the loan is a behest loan and seeks the filing of charges against the respondents, including the Romualdez family members.

The Ombudsman dismissed the charges and found no evidence supporting the claim that the loan was a behest loan or that it caused damage to the government. The Ombudsman pointed out that the DBP Board of Governors implemented safety measures to protect the bank's interests.

The Ombudsman also highlighted that the loan application was not filed on the claimed date. The loan was approved on December 29, 1980, and there was no evidence to prove that the application was filed on December 15, 1980, as claimed. The evaluation report on Agretronics' loan application only showed the appraisal of the loan security and the submission of the company's financial statement as of October 31, 1980.

Furthermore, the Ombudsman argued that even if the government suffered injury from the transaction, the respondents cannot be held liable for violating the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act due to lack of evidence of bad faith, manifest partiality, or gross inexcusable negligence.

The petitioner challenges the Ombudsman's decision, alleging grave abuse of discretion and seeking the reversal of the resolution and the filing of charges against the respondents. The issue of whether the offense has already prescribed is also raised.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether there is probable cause for the suspects to stand trial.

  2. Whether the offense charged has prescribed.

RULING:

  1. Yes, there is probable cause for the suspects to stand trial. Probable cause requires more than mere bare suspicion but less than evidence which would justify a conviction. It is a probability of guilt, and it is enough if evidence shows that it is more likely than not that a crime has been committed and was committed by the suspects. In this case, the petitioner Committee, comprised of members from the banking sector, is in a better position to determine that the loan bears the earmarks of a behest loan.

  2. No, the offense charged has not prescribed. The prescriptive period for offenses under Republic Act No. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act) is reckoned from the date of discovery of the offense, not from the date of its commission. In this case, the offense should be deemed discovered on June 14, 1996, the date of filing the complaint with the Ombudsman after an exhaustive investigation by the petitioner Committee. The filing of such complaint for preliminary investigation tolls the running of the prescriptive period.

PRINCIPLES:

  • The Ombudsman is subject to judicial review when there is grave abuse of discretion.

  • The Ombudsman's role is to establish whether there exists probable cause to file an information in court, not to try the case.

  • Probable cause exists when there is a well-grounded belief that an offense has been committed and the accused is probably guilty thereof.

  • Standard banking procedures and practices should be presented and proved before the trial court to determine their compliance.

  • Conflicting claims and evidence should be resolved in a full-blown trial.

  • The presence of all the enumerated characteristics of a behest loan is not necessary, a few will suffice.

  • Findings of facts of administrative bodies charged with their specific field of expertise are given great weight by the courts, unless there is a substantial showing of an erroneous estimation of the evidence.

  • The resulting failure to pay back a loan is enough evidence of damage to the government.

  • Probable cause requires more than mere suspicion but less than evidence justifying conviction.

  • The prescriptive period for offenses under Republic Act No. 3019 is reckoned from the date of discovery of the offense, not from the date of its commission.