The Presidential Ad Hoc Fact-Finding Committee on Behest Loans (Committee) filed a complaint with the Office of the Ombudsman against members of the Development Bank of the Philippines (DBP) Board of Governors and officers of Integrated Circuits Philippines (ICPI) for alleged violations of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act related to loans between ICPI and DBP. The Ombudsman dismissed the complaint, finding no probable cause. The Committee alleges the Ombudsman committed grave abuse of discretion. However, the Supreme Court ruled that the Ombudsman did not abuse its discretion, as the criminal offenses had not prescribed, the administrative orders creating the Committee were not ex
The Presidential Ad Hoc Fact-Finding Committee on Behest Loans (Committee) filed a complaint with the Office of the Ombudsman against members of the Development Bank of the Philippines (DBP) Board of Governors and officers of Integrated Circuits Philippines (ICPI) for alleged violations of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act related to loans between ICPI and DBP. The Ombudsman dismissed the complaint, finding no probable cause. The Committee alleges the Ombudsman committed grave abuse of discretion. However, the Supreme Court ruled that the Ombudsman did not abuse its discretion, as the criminal offenses had not prescribed, the administrative orders creating the Committee were not ex
The Presidential Ad Hoc Fact-Finding Committee on Behest Loans (Committee) filed a complaint with the Office of the Ombudsman against members of the Development Bank of the Philippines (DBP) Board of Governors and officers of Integrated Circuits Philippines (ICPI) for alleged violations of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act related to loans between ICPI and DBP. The Ombudsman dismissed the complaint, finding no probable cause. The Committee alleges the Ombudsman committed grave abuse of discretion. However, the Supreme Court ruled that the Ombudsman did not abuse its discretion, as the criminal offenses had not prescribed, the administrative orders creating the Committee were not ex
The Presidential Ad Hoc Fact-Finding Committee on Behest Loans (Committee) filed a complaint with the Office of the Ombudsman against members of the Development Bank of the Philippines (DBP) Board of Governors and officers of Integrated Circuits Philippines (ICPI) for alleged violations of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act related to loans between ICPI and DBP. The Ombudsman dismissed the complaint, finding no probable cause. The Committee alleges the Ombudsman committed grave abuse of discretion. However, the Supreme Court ruled that the Ombudsman did not abuse its discretion, as the criminal offenses had not prescribed, the administrative orders creating the Committee were not ex
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1of 2
G.R. No.
145184 March 14, 2008
PRESIDENTIAL AD HOC FACT-FINDING COMMITTEE ON BEHEST LOANS, vs. HON. ANIANO A. DESIERTO, FACTS: President Fidel V. Ramos issued Administrative Order No. 13 creating the Presidential Ad Hoc Fact-Finding Committee on Behest Loans (Committee). A behest loan may involve civil liability for non-payment or non-recovery and may likewise entail criminal liability. Several loan accounts were referred to the Committee for its investigation, including the loan transactions between now Integrated Circuits Philippines (ICPI), and the Development Bank of the Philippines (DBP). After examining and studying the loan transactions, the Committee filed with the Office of the Ombudsman a sworn complaint 3 for violation of Section 3(e)(g) of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 3019, or the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, against the Concerned Members of the DBP Board of Governors, and Concerned Directors and Officers of ICPI. After evaluating the evidence submitted by the Committee, the Ombudsman issued the assailed Memorandum, finding that there was no probable cause to warrant the filing of the instant case in court. To start with, the cause of action has prescribed and the aforesaid Administrative and Memorandum Orders both issued by the President in 1992, may not be retroactively applied to the questioned transactions which took place in 1980 because to do so would be tantamount to an ex post facto law. Petitioner alleges that the Ombudsman committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in ruling that (i) the offenses subject of its criminal complaint had prescribed; (ii) Administrative Order No. 13 and Memorandum Order No. 61 are ex post facto laws; and (iii) there is no probable cause to indict private respondents for violation under Section 3(e)(g) of R.A. No. 3019. ISSUE: Whether or not the Ombudsman can acted with grave abuse of discretion RULING: NO. The counting of the prescriptive period commenced from the date of discovery of the offense in 1992. Thus, the criminal offenses allegedly committed by the private respondents had not yet prescribed when the complaint was filed. The constitutional proscription of ex post facto laws is aimed against the retrospectivity of penal laws. Administrative Order No. 13 merely creates the Presidential Ad Hoc Fact- Finding Committee on Behest Loans and provides for its composition and functions. Memorandum Order No. 61, on the other hand, simply provides the frame of reference in determining the existence of behest loans. Not being penal laws, Administrative Order No. 13 and Memorandum Order No. 61 cannot be characterized as ex-post facto laws. Furthermore the Ombudsman had no jurisdiction in delving into the constitutionality of the subject administrative and memorandum orders. However, there was no probable cause to base the action. Mistakes committed by a public officer are not actionable, absent a clear showing that he was motivated by malice or gross negligence amounting to bad faith. Petitioners utterly failed to show that private respondents actions fit such description. In sum, petitioner does not persuade us that the contract between ICPI and DBP was a behest loan. The Ombudsman can hardly be faulted for not wanting to proceed with the prosecution of the offense, convinced that he does not possess the necessary evidence to secure a conviction. The petition is DENIED. The assailed Memorandum and Order of the Ombudsman in OMB-0- 95-0443, are AFFIRMED.