G.R. No. 212269 - PRESIDENTIAL COMMISSION ON GOOD GOVERNMENT, VS. OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, ROBERTO V. ONGPIN, GERARDO AGULTO, JR., DOMINGO INGCO, BERNARDO M. VERGARA, FEDERICO SALCEDO AND MERLE JEAN O. DEEN.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, this case is, DISMISSED, for lack of probable cause. SO RESOLVED. [15] PCGG moved for the reconsideration of the Ombudsman's resolution, [16] however, it was denied in the Ombudsman's October 9, 2012 Order. [17] Hence, this present Petition for Certiorari [18] raising the following issues: I. CERTIORARI LIES TO REVIEW THE ACTION OF THE OMBUDSMAN IN FINDING LACK OF PROBABLE CAUSE TO INDICT RESPONDENTS FOR SECTION 3(e) AND (g) OF R.A. NO. 3019. II. GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK OR EXCESS OF JURISDICTION TAINTED THE DISMISSAL OF THE SUBJECT COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATION OF SECTIONS 3(e) and (g) OF R.A. NO. 3019. III. PROBABLE CAUSE EXISTS TO INDICT RESPONDENTS FOR VIOLATION OF SECTIONS 3(e) and (g) [OF] R.A. NO. 3019. [19] PCGG contends that this Court is "not precluded from reviewing the Ombudsman's action when there is grave abuse of discretion" [20] despite the latter's wide latitude of judgment whether to proceed with the charge or not. The Ombudsman committed grave abuse of discretion when it found no probable cause against respondents even if Marbella received unwarranted benefits brought about by the approval of the loan to the prejudice and disadvantage of the government. Ongpin, Aspiras, the officials of PNB, and the directors of Marbella conspired and confederated to grant preference and advantage to a fictional corporation Marbella, through manifest partiality, evident bad faith, and gross inexcusable negligence. [21] It specifically avers: The approval of the loan was highly irregular and bore badges of former President [Ferdinand] Marcos' direct intervention to accommodate [Marbella], as can be gleaned from the following: (i) the transfer of the land owned by [PTA], a government agency created pursuant to Presidential Decree No. 189, to [Marbella] to be used as collateral for the loan secured by the latter from PNB; (ii) PTA's guaranty of said loans of [Marbella]; (iii) PNB's waiver of its share in the proceeds of the condominium units purchased by National Development Company (NDC) in favor of[Marbella]; (iv) the PTA-NDC's venture regarding 48 condominium units in the [Marbella] project; (v) the pro bono dredging of Caylabne Bay for [Marbella]; and (vi) the additional capital infusion of NDC and PTA in [Marbella]. [22] In addition, Marbella's loan may be characterized as under collateralized and lacking in sufficient equity. These factors, coupled with the non-feasibility of the project and the swift release of the loan, would point to the existence of probable cause for violation of Sec. 3 (e) and (g) of Republic Act No. 3019. [23] Hence, the Office of the Ombudsman gravely abused its discretion in dismissing the case for lack of probable cause. PCGG maintains that the manner by which the loans were approved in favor of Marbella is comparable to the criteria of a behest loan. As laid down in Memorandum Order No. 61 [24] dated November 9, 1992, the following may be used as reference in ascertaining behest loans, to w