Scribd
Upload
737 views2 pages

PRESIDENTIAL AD-HOC FACT FINDING COMMITTEE ON BEHEST LOANS, Etc. v. Desierto

The Presidential Ad-hoc Fact Finding Committee investigated non-performing loans granted by the Development Bank of the Philippines, including behest loans to the Philippines Seeds, Inc. The Committee filed a complaint with the Ombudsman against the directors of PSI and DBP for violating laws on behest loans. The Ombudsman dismissed the complaint, ruling the prescriptive period had lapsed since it began when the loans were granted, not when the Committee discovered the offenses. The Supreme Court granted the petition, finding the Ombudsman gravely abused its discretion by dismissing the case without allowing counter-affidavits and by incorrectly ruling that prescriptive period began at loan granting rather than offense discovery.

Uploaded by

April Joy Omboy
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
737 views2 pages

PRESIDENTIAL AD-HOC FACT FINDING COMMITTEE ON BEHEST LOANS, Etc. v. Desierto

The Presidential Ad-hoc Fact Finding Committee investigated non-performing loans granted by the Development Bank of the Philippines, including behest loans to the Philippines Seeds, Inc. The Committee filed a complaint with the Ombudsman against the directors of PSI and DBP for violating laws on behest loans. The Ombudsman dismissed the complaint, ruling the prescriptive period had lapsed since it began when the loans were granted, not when the Committee discovered the offenses. The Supreme Court granted the petition, finding the Ombudsman gravely abused its discretion by dismissing the case without allowing counter-affidavits and by incorrectly ruling that prescriptive period began at loan granting rather than offense discovery.

Uploaded by

April Joy Omboy
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

PRESIDENTIAL AD-HOC FACT FINDING COMMITTEE ON BEHEST LOANS, etc. v.

HONORABLE ANIANO A. DESIERTO, et al.

G.R. No. 135715. April 13, 2011, Second Division, (Carpio-Morales, J.)

Facts:

President Ramos issued a Memorandum Order No.61 directing the Committee to include in its

investigation, inventory and study all non-performing loans which shall embrace both behest and
nonbehest loans. The Committee reported that the Philippines Seeds, Inc. was one of the 21
corporations

which obtained behest loans. In his instructions, handwritten on the cover of the aforementioned
report,

President Ramos directed Committee Chairman Magtanggol C. Guingundo to proceed with

administrative and judicial actions against the 21 firms in this batch with positive findings as soon as

possible. The Committee filed with the Ombudsman a sworn complaint against the Directors of PSI and

the Directors of the Development Bank of the Philip pines who approved the loans for the violation of

par. E & G of Sec.3 of R.A. 30 19. In its Resolution, the Ombudsman dismissed the complaint on the

ground of prescription. Relying on the case of People vs. Dinsay, a case decided by the C.A.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the public respondent Ombudsman gravely abused his discretion in holding that

the prescriptive period in this case should be counted from the date of the grant of the behest loans

involved and not from the date of discovery of the same by the Committee.

RULING:

Petition granted.

We agree with the Ombudsman that Sec. 15 of Art. 11 of the Constitution apply to civil actions

for recovery of ill-gotten wealth and not to criminal actions such as the complaint against the respected

firms. This is clear from the proceedings of the Constitutional Commission of 1986. The upshot of the

discussion is the prosecution of offense arising from, relating or incident to or involving ill-gotten wealth

contemplated in Sec.15 Art.11 of the Constitution may be barred by prescription. The applicable rule in

the computation of the prescriptive period is Sec.2 of Act. No.326 in the special law violated. It stated

that if the commission of the crime is known, the prescriptive period shall commence to run on the day

it was committed. In the case at bar, the Ombudsman forthwith dismissed the complaint without even
requiring the respondents to submit their counter-affidavits and solely on the basis of dates the alleged

behest loans were granted or the dates of the commission of the alleged offense was committed. Since

the computation of the prescriptive period for the filing of the criminal actions should commence from

the discovery of the offense, the Ombudsman clearly acted with grave abuse of discretion in dismissing

outright the case.

You might also like