|
THE
Supreme Court (SC) has ordered the prosecution for graft
of three relatives of former first lady Imelda Romualdez
Marcos in connection with the behest loans obtained by
their company Agretronics Inc. from the Development Bank
of the Philippines (DBP) in 1980.
In a
14-page decision penned by Associate Justice Ruben
Reyes, the Court en banc unanimously reversed and set
aside the August 18, 1998 resolution issued by
then-Ombudsman Aniano Desierto, dismissing the complaint
filed by the Presidential Ad-Hoc Fact-Finding Committee
on Behest Loan against siblings Angel Romualdez, Jose
Romualdez and Jose Manuel Romualdez, “distant nephews”
of the former first lady, for violation of Section 3 (e)
and (g), of Republic Act 3019, or the Antigraft and
Corrupt Practices Act.
The
committee claimed that the government suffered injury
when the DBP approved the loan transaction considering
that Agretronics was undercapitalized when it was
approved in December 1980.
It noted
that Agretronics managed to obtain a loan of P21.5
million despite having a paid-up capital of only P1.25
million.
Desierto
junked the complaint of the antigraft committee on the
ground of lack probable cause and prescription of the
offense.
In
reversing the Ombudsman’s decision, the SC branded as
“absurd” the Ombudsman’s ruling that there is no
evidence of damage to the government as a result of the
transaction between Agretronics and the DBP.
The SC
noted that the damage to the government of Agretronics’
transaction with the DBP “is clear” since as of June
1986, the company’s total obligation to the DBP amounted
to P154,969,000.
Upon
foreclosure and sale of the remaining assets of
Agretronics, the High Court said, “the government only
realized the measly sum of around P1,942,000.”
“The
fact that the loan was not paid back is, by itself,
enough evidence of damage to the government,” the SC
said.
“A
finding of probable cause need only rest on evidence
showing that, more likely than not, a crime has been
committed and was committed by the suspects. There is
clearly probable cause here for the suspects to stand
trial,” the Court added.
It also
did not give credence to the claim of the Ombudsman that
the case can no longer be prosecuted since the offense
has already prescribed.
The
Court noted that it is well settled that the 10-year
prescriptive period should be reckoned from the date of
the discovery of the offense.
“In the
case under review, the violation should be deemed
discovered on June 14, 1996, date of filing of the
complaint with respondent Ombudsman after an exhaustive
investigation by petitioner committee. It is now settled
that the filing of such complaint for preliminary
investigation tolls the running of the prescriptive
period, hence there is no legal obstacle in filing the
corresponding information in Court,” the SC said.
Likewise, the SC stressed that the recommendation of the
committee should be given great weight as its members
are experts in the field of banking.
It noted
that the committee boasts of representatives from the
Department of Finance, the Philippine National Bank, the
Asset Privatization Trust, the Philippine Export and
Foreign Loan Guarantee Corp. and even the DBP itself.
The
Court ruled that while Desierto held that the alleged
extraordinary speed in loan approval was not supported
by evidence, the matter should have been left to the
trial court to decide. |
