SC affirms dismissal of graft charges vs FM’S former Cabinet men, others
THE Supreme Court (SC) has affirmed the dismissal by the Office of the Ombudsman of the graft complaint against two former Cabinet secretaries of the late former President Ferdinand E. Marcos Sr. and several others in connection with the $20 million alleged behest loans granted by the Philippine National Bank to a six-month-old company in 1980 for the construction of a tourism resort in Cavite.
In a 16-page decision promulgated on January 17, 2023 but was released to the public on Wednesday, the SC’S First Division denied the claim of the petitioner, Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG), that the Ombudsman committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing its complaint for violation of Section 3 (e) and (g) of Republic Act No. 3019, or the Anti-graft and Corrupt Practices Act against the late Roberto V. Ongpin, then Minister of Trade and Industry, former Minister of Tourism Jose Aspiras, and former Philippine National Bank (PNB) officials, namely, Panfilo Domingo (president), Gerardo Aguigo (senior vice president), Domingo Ingco (executive vice president).
Aside from Ongpin, Aspiras and the former PNB officials, the Ombudsman also cleared officials of Marbella Club Manila Inc., namely Bernardo Vergara, Federico Salcedo and Merle Jean Deen.
The Ombudsman issued the resolution dismissing PCGG’S complaint on August 24, 2012 and denied its motion for reconsideration in an order issued on October 9, 2012.
The SC said the findings of the Ombudsman that no probable cause existed to warrant the indictment of the respondents for graft were based on facts and evidence.
“The Ombudsman found no proof of manifest partiality, evident bad faith, or gross inexcusable negligence on the part of the respondents, not a contract entered into to the great disadvantage or prejudice of the Philippine government; hence, no liability under Section 3 [e] and [g] of Republic Act No. 3019 attached to respondents,” the decision stated.
The ruling was penned by Associate Justice Ramon Paul Hernando. Associate Justices Rodil Zalameda, Ricardo Rosario, Jose Midas Marquez and Maria Filomena Singh concurred with the ruling.
The SC pointed out that the Ombudsman’s decision was anchored on the conclusion following its evaluation of evidence that Marbella was not a fictional corporation being registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) on November 29, 1978 with a subscribed capital of P37.5 million and paid-up capital amounting to P19.6 million at the time of its loan application.
“The Ombudsman’s determination of probable cause does not resolve the accused’s guilt or innocence but evaluates whether the evidence presented before it would engender a well-founded belief that a crime has been committed or that the accused is probably guilty of committing said crime,” the SC said.
The SC also held that the Ombudsman “did not arbitrarily exercise its bounded duty” considering that the dismissal of the case was based on the evidence submitted by the parties.
“Accordingly, this Court upholds the principle of non-interference with the investigatory and prosecutorial powers of the Ombudsman absent any showing of grave abuse of discretion on its part and of the established exceptions for this Court to do so,” the SC added.
In its complaint, the PCGG accused the PNB of entering into an agreement grossly disadvantageous to the government.
The PCGG recounted that in April 1979, or barely six months after Marbella was incorporated, the National Investment and Development Corporation (NIDC), a subsidiary of PNB, approved the request of Marbella for the issuance of an NIDC Letter of Guaranty in favor of Europe-asia Finance Corporation (EAFC) or any other financiers to guarantee foreign credit in the principal amount of $20 million.
When the credit arrangement with EAFC failed to materialize, Marbella applied for $20 million loan with PNB, which the latter approved on September 1, 1980.
To fund the loan, then Central Bank (now Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas) granted PNB a $20 million loan under its Consolidated Foreign Borrowings Program (CFBP).
The PCGG said PNB approved the loan of Marbella even before it became the registered owner of the land where the purported tourism resort was to be established.
Two years later, the PCGG said, the PNB Board issued a resolution advancing P15.6 million to Marbella, to enable the latter to pay interest due on its foreign loan when it defaulted on its interest payment due in November 1982.
The PCGG asserted that such early default on mere interest payment was an indication that Marbella was a “poor credit risk,” and that the loan was attended with “manifest partiality, bad faith and/ or inexcusable negligence.”
Earlier, the SC also ordered the dismissal of the graft charges against President Ferdinand R. Marcos Jr.’s chief legal counsel, Juan Ponce Enrile, who also served as defense minister during his father’s regime, in connection with the alleged siphoning of coco levy funds amounting to P840.7 million.
Likewise exonerated were Enrile’s co-respondents, namely, businessman Jose Concepcion, Rolando dela Cuesta, Narciso Pineda and Danila Ursua.
The SC held that the Ombudsman violated the constitutional right to speedy disposition of cases warranting the dismissal of the graft charges against them.