G.R. NOS. 160577-94 - GREGORIO SINGIAN, JR., VS. THE HONORABLE SANDIGANBAYAN (THIRD DIVISION), THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, AND THE PRESIDENTIAL COMMISSION ON GOOD GOVERNMENT

Ruling

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is respectfully recommended that the OSP Review Memorandum [9] dated May 2, 2000 be MODIFIED as follows: That accused Panfilo O. Domingo, Domingo G. Ingco, Constantino Bautista, Leticia T. Teodoro, Gregorio Singian, Tomas T. Teodoro and Marfina T. Singian be EXONERATED from any criminal liability in the following Criminal Cases: (a) Criminal Cases Nos. 26298, 26301-304 and 26306-26314 against all the accused charged therein; (b) Criminal Case No. 26297 as against accused Panfilo Domingo and Domingo Ingco; (c) Criminal Case No. 26299 as against accused Constantino Bautista; (d) Criminal Cases Nos. 26300 and 26305 as against Domingo Ingco and Constantino Bautista; That the Informations in Criminal Cases Nos. 26297, 26299-26300 and 26305 be correspondingly amended to conform with the evidence on records. [10] The recommendations of Prosecutor Ferrer exonerating petitioner and his co-accused of the charges were, however, disapproved by Ombudsman Simeon V. Marcelo. From the adverse finding of the Ombudsman, petitioner filed before the Sandiganbayan a Motion for Re-determination of Existence of Probable Cause which was denied by the latter in a resolution dated 18 August 2003. Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration which was eventually denied by the Sandiganbayan in a resolution dated 24 October 2003. Hence, this petition for certiorari. Petitioner ascribes to the Sandiganbayan grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in issuing the assailed resolution dated 18 August 2003, and order dated 24 October 2003 on the following grounds: I PETITIONER SINGIAN CANNOT BE HELD LIABLE FOR VIOLATING SECTIONS 3(e) AND (g) OF R.A. 3019 BECAUSE NO PROOF WAS EVER ADDUCED TO ESTABLISH THAT THE LOANS SUBJECT OF CRIMINAL CASES NOS. 26297 TO 26314 NOW PENDING WITH THE RESPONDENT SANDIGANBAYAN WERE BEHEST LOANS. THE CONTENTION OF THE PROSECUTION THAT THE SUBJECT LOANS WERE UNDERCOLLATERALIZED IS COMPLETELY BELIED BY THE FACT THAT OTHER SECURITIES WERE GIVEN BY ISI IN ADDITION TO THE LAND THAT IT PUT UP AS COLLATERAL. THE PROSECUTION'S CLAIM THAT ISI ALLEGEDLY SUFFERED FROM A VERY LOW CAPITAL RATIO OF 6.75% IS BOTH GRATUITOUS AND SELF-SERVING, IN VIEW OF ITS FAILURE TO ADDUCE THE BANKING STANDARD OF ACCEPTABILITY. II THE RULING OF THE RESPONDENT COURT THAT PETITIONER SINGIAN IS CRIMINALLY RESPONSIBLE FOR ISI'S PURPORTED FAILURE TO PUT UP ADDITIONAL CAPITALIZATION AND COLLATERALS IS MANIFESTLY INCONSISTENT WITH ITS FINDING THAT SAID PETITIONER IS NEITHER A STOCKHOLDER NOR A DIRECTOR OF THE COMPANY. III THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT PETITIONER WAS PART OF ANY CONSPIRACY RELATIVE TO THE EVALUATION AND GRANT OF THE LOANS SUBJECT OF THE CRIMINAL CASES BEFORE THE RESPONDENT SANDIGANBAYAN. In dealing with cases of this kind, we have invariably refused to interfere with the discretion of the Ombudsman. The act of the Ombudsman in finding probable cause to indict petitioner is an exercise of his powers based upon cons