GR 135080; (November, 2007) (Digest)
G.R. No. 135080 ; November 28, 2007
ORLANDO L. SALVADOR, for and in behalf of the Presidential Ad Hoc Fact-Finding Committee on Behest Loans, Petitioner, vs. PLACIDO L. MAPA, JR., et al., Respondents.
FACTS
The Presidential Ad Hoc Fact-Finding Committee on Behest Loans, through Atty. Orlando Salvador, filed a criminal complaint with the Office of the Ombudsman against respondents, officers of the Development Bank of the Philippines (DBP) and Metals Exploration Asia, Inc. (MEA)/Philippine Eagle Mines, Inc. (PEMI). The complaint alleged that loan accommodations granted to PEMI in 1979-1980 were behest loans, having been undercollateralized, extended to an undercapitalized corporation identified with cronies of then President Ferdinand Marcos, and approved with extraordinary speed despite non-compliance with conditions. The Ombudsman dismissed the complaint on the ground of prescription, ruling that the applicable 15-year prescriptive period for the complex crime of estafa through falsification of public documents had already lapsed from the date of the loan releases in 1980.
ISSUE
Whether the Office of the Ombudsman committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the criminal complaint on the ground of prescription.
RULING
Yes. The Supreme Court granted the petition and set aside the Ombudsman’s resolutions. The Court held that the Ombudsman committed grave abuse of discretion in applying the general rules on prescription without considering the constitutional and statutory exceptions pertinent to recovery of ill-gotten wealth. The Court emphasized that Section 15, Article XI of the 1987 Constitution explicitly states that the right of the State to recover properties unlawfully acquired by public officials shall not be barred by prescription. While this constitutional provision directly addresses civil recovery, the Court, citing precedent, ruled that it equally applies to criminal cases arising from the same illicit acts, as criminal liability is intertwined with the civil liability to restore the ill-gotten wealth. Therefore, the prescriptive period for the criminal offense could not be reckoned from the date of the loan transaction in 1980. The case was remanded to the Ombudsman to evaluate the merits of the complaint, including the respondents’ defenses, which were not passed upon due to the erroneous dismissal.