8/11/2019 Presidential Ad Hoc Committee v Desierto
1/1
Imprescriptibility of the States Right to R ecover
Presidential Ad Hoc Fact-Finding Committee on Behest Loans v.
Desierto (14 August 2001)Jeane Yaneza
FactsDuring Ramos' term of office, he issued the following:1.
Administrative Order No. 13 - Created the Presidential Ad Hoc
Fact-Finding Committee on Behest Loans.2. Memorandum No. 61 -
Expanded the functions of the committee to investigate all
non-performing loans whether behest or
non-behest loans
In 1974, Apparel World Inc. applied for an Import Letter of
Credit with the Philippine National Bank (PNB) in the amount
ofDM15,000,000.00 (P40,660,114.86) for the importation of
machinery, equipment and accessories for a garment factory. Less
than amonth later, PNB approved the loan without collateral.
The Presidential Ad Hoc Fact-Finding Committee classified
Apparel's loan with PNB as a behest loan. Thereafter, in 1998, a
complaintwas filed with the Ombudsman for violation of Section 3(e)
and (g), R. A. No. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act).
The case was dismissed by the Ombudsman on the following
grounds:1. Lack of evidence2. Prescription
- The prescriptive period began to run from the time the loan
was executed and not when it was discovered as an alleged
behestloan.
3. Memorandum Order 61 and Administrative Order No. 12 operated
as ex post facto laws.- When the loan was approved in 1974, there
was no law which classified it as a behest loan. Thus, AO 12 and MO
61 whichwere issued in 1992, operated as ex post facto laws.
Issue Holding RatioWhether or not theprescriptive period
beginsto run on the date of thecommission of the offense
No According to Act 3326, the prescriptive period begins to run
either at the time of thecommission of the offense or the discovery
of its commission .
Accordin g to the Ombudsmans decision, t he period of
prescription began at the time of thecommission of the offense.
However, the Supreme Court held that it would have beenimpossible
for the State to know about the violations of RA 3019 on the date
of its
commission due to the fact that the public officials concerned
connived or conspired withthe beneficiaries of the loans. Thus, the
prescriptive period begins to run from the discoveryof the
commission of the offense. Accordingly, prescription has not yet
set in.
Whether or not theSupreme Court can reviewthe exercise of
discretionof the Ombudsman inprosecuting or dismissinga complaint
before it.
No In Alba v. Nitorreda, the Supreme Court held that it is
beyond the ambit of this Court toreview the exercise of discretion
of the Ombudsman in prosecuting or dismissing acomplaint filed
before it. Such initiative and independence are inherent in the
Ombudsmanwho, beholden to no one, acts as the champion of the
people and preserver of the integrityof the public service.
It would also be impractical for the Supreme Court to do so
since the court would beswamped by petitions assailing the
Ombudsman s dismissal of their complaints.
Whether or not theOmbudsman acted withGAD in dismissing the
caseagainst the respondents
No The Ombudsmans dism issal of the case was based on
substantial evidence.
Note - Elements of a behest loan:a. it was
undercollateralized;b. the borrower corporation was
undercapitalized;c. direct or indirect endorsement by high
government officials like presence of marginal notes;d.
stockholders, officers or agents of the borrower corporation were
identified as cronies;e. deviation of use of loan proceeds from the
purpose intended;f. use of corporate layering;g. non-feasibility of
the project for which financing was sought andh. extraordinary
speed at which the loan release was made.
