RULE 129 EVIDENCE Presidential Ad Hoc Fact Finding Committee on Behest Loans v. Disierto, GR 130817, 2001

 Presidential Ad Hoc Fact Finding Committee on Behest Loans v. Disierto, GR 130817, 2001

Doctrine: In cases involving violations of Republic Act No. 3019 committed prior to the February 1986 EDSA Revolution that ousted President Ferdinand E. Marcos, the government as the aggrieved party could not have known of the violations at the time the questioned transactions were made, thus the counting of the prescriptive period commenced from the date of discovery of the offense in 1992, after an exhaustive investigation by the Presidential Ad Hoc Committee on Behest Loans.

FACTS: During Ramos' term of office, he issued the following: 

          Administrative  Order  No.  13  -  Created  the Presidential  Ad  Hoc  Fact-Finding  Committee                  on Behest Loans.

 

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 in the amount of DM15,000,000.00 (P40,660,114.86) for the importation of machinery, equipment and accessories for a garment factory. Less than a month 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 complaint was 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 due to prescription. Hence, this case.

ISSUE: WHETHER THE PRESCRIPTIVE PERIOD ACCORDING TO RA 3019 BEGINS TO RUN ONLY ON THE DATE OF THE COMMISSION OF THE OFFENSE?

HELD: NO. *See Stated Doctrine* According to Act 3326, the prescriptive period begins to run either at the time of the commission of the offense or the discovery of its commission. According to the Ombudsman’s decision, the period of prescription began at the time of the commission of the offense.

However, the Supreme Court held that it would have been impossible 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 with the ‘beneficiaries of the loans.

 

OTHER DOCTRINES: Where the computation of the prescriptive period for the filing of the criminal action should commence from the discovery of the offense, the Ombudsman clearly acts with grave abuse of discretion if he dismisses outright the complaint—he should first receive the evidence from the parties to resolve the case on its merits and on the issue of the date of discovery of the offense.