Republic of the Philippines vs. Conjuanco
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. EDUARDO COJUANGCO, et al.
G.R. NO. 139930 JUNE 26, 2012
674 SCRA 492
PLEASE NOTE THAT YOU ARE PRESUMED THAT YOU HAVE READ THE ORIGINAL TEXT OF THE CASE. THIS IS FOR THE PURPOSE OF REVIEW. *Read at your own risk* :)
(Criminal Procedure)
FACTS:
- September 1978 – UNICOM amended its capitalization
- August 1979 – BOD of UCPB approved a resolution authorizing UCPB, the CII Fund, to invest NOT more than P500M form the dunf in the equity of UNICOM for the benefit of the coconut farmers.
- Sept 4 1979 – UNICOM increased its ACS to 10M shares w/o par value.
- Sept 18 – new set of UNICOM directors approved another amendment to UNICOM’s capitalization.
- March 1, 1990 (10YRS) OSG --- complaint for violation of Sec 3(e) RA 3019 against UCPB BOD before the PCGG; UCPB’s investment in UNICOM was manifestly and grossly disadvantageous to the government since UNICOM had a capitalization of only P5M and it had no track record of operation.
- PCGG --- referred to OMB
- March 15, 1999 (9YRS) OSP issued MEMO stating although it found sufficient basis to indict respondents for violation for RA 3019, the ACTION HAS ALREADY PRESCRIBE
Period of prescription commenced = FEBRUARY 8, 1980 (UNICOM filed Certificate of Filinf of Amended Articles of Inc with SEC)
· Complaint = MARCH 1, 1990
ISSUE: whether or not the respondents’ alleged violation of RA 3019 has already prescribed.
HELD: affirmed the memorandum of the OMB
- SC → in jurisprudence, it applies only to wealth, NOT TO CRIMINAL cases such as the in the present case
- BEFORE – it was only 10YRs
- (AMENDED by BP 195 –March 16 1982)
- SEC 11 RA 3019 – Offenses committed under that law PRESCRIBES IN 15 YRS. COMPLAINT was FILED BEFORE THE AMENDMENT.
- NOW - RA 3019 as special law, 10YRS PRESCRIPTIVE computed in accordance with the SEC 2 of ACT 3326
2 RULES in determining when the prescriptive period shall begin to run:
- From the day of the commission of the violation of the law, if known; and
- From its discovery, if NOT then known, and the institution of judicial proceedings for its investigation and punishment
- OSG --- 2nd rule – after the 1986 EDSA Revo
- Then its late since 1996
OTHER NOTES:
Criminal Procedure; Prescription; Behest Loans; In the prosecution of cases of behest loans, the Court reckoned the prescriptive period from the discover of such loans. The reason for this is that the government, as aggrieved party, could not have known that those loans existed when they were made.
In the prosecution of cases of behest loans, the Court reckoned the prescriptive period from the discovery of such loans. The reason for this is that the government, as aggrieved party, could not have known that those loans existed when they were made. Both parties to such loans supposedly conspired to perpetrate fraud against the government. They could only have been discovered after the 1986 EDSA Revolution when the people ousted President Marcos from office. And, prior to that date, no person would have dared question the legality or propriety of the loans.
Criminal Procedure; Prescription; Prescription of actions is a valued rule in all civilized states from the beginning of organized society.
Prescription of actions is a valued rule in all civilized states from the beginning of organized society. It is a rule of fairness since, without it, the plaintiff can postpone the filing of his action to the point of depriving the defendant, through the passage of time, of access to defense witnesses who would have died or left to live elsewhere, or to documents that would have been discarded or could no longer be located. Moreover, the memories of witnesses are eroded by time. There is an absolute need in the interest of fairness to bar actions that have taken the plaintiffs too long to file in court.
Special Civil Actions; The remedy from an adverse resolution of the Office of the Ombudsman in a preliminary investigation is a special civil action of certiorari under Rule 65
Preliminarily, the Court notes that what Republic of the Philippines (petitioner) filed in this case is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45. But the remedy from an adverse resolution of the Office of the Ombudsman in a preliminary investigation is a special civil action of certiorari under Rule 65. Still, the Court will treat this petition as one filed under Rule 65 since a reading of its contents reveals that petitioner imputes grave abuse of discretion and reversible jurisdictional error to the Ombudsman for dismissing the complaint. The Court has previously treated differently labeled actions as special civil actions for certiorari under Rule 65 for acceptable reasons such as justice, equity, and fair play.
Criminal Law; Constitutional Law; Ill-Gotten Wealth; Prescription; Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act; Section 15, Article XI of the 1987 Philippine Consitution provides that the right of the State to recover properties unlawfully acquired by public officials or employees is not barred by prescription, laches, or estoppel
As to the main issue, petitioner maintains that, although the charge against respondents was for violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, its prosecution relates to its efforts to recover the ill-gotten wealth of former President Ferdinand Marcos and of his family and cronies. Section 15, Article XI of the 1987 Constitution provides that the right of the State to recover properties unlawfully acquired by public officials or employees is not barred by prescription, laches, or estoppel. But the Court has already settled in Presidential Ad Hoc Fact-Finding Committee on Behest Loans v. Desierto that Section 15, Article XI of the 1987 Constitution applies only to civil actions for recovery of ill-gotten wealth, not to criminal cases such as the complaint against respondents in OMB-0-90-2810. Thus, the prosecution of offenses arising from, relating or incident to, or involving ill-gotten wealth contemplated in Section 15, Article XI of the 1987 Constitution may be barred by prescription.
0 comments :
Post a Comment