G.R. No. 198366 -

Ruling

WHEREFORE, it is hereby recommended that the instant complaint for violation of Section 3(e) and (g) of R.A. 3019, as amended, against Public Respondents, namely: Cesar Zalamea, Rafael Sison, Alicia Reyes, J.V. De Ocampo, Joseph Edralin and Rodolfo Manalo, all officers of the DBP, as well as Private Respondents, namely: Ramon Lee, Johnny Teng, Antonio DM. Lac[d]ao, and Cesar Marcelo, all officers of ALFA, be DISMISSED. SO RESOLVED. [23] Preliminarily, the Office of the Ombudsman found that the Complaint had not been barred by prescription, citing Presidential Ad Hoc Fact-Finding Committee on Behest Loans v. Desierto , [24] in which this Court held that prescription of the offense in behest loans started to run from the day of discovery, not commission. Here, the period of prescription commenced on March 15, 1993, when the Fortnightly Report was issued. The Presidential Commission on Good Government filed the Complaint on March 12, 2003, which was still within the 10-year prescriptive period under the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. [25] Nonetheless, the Office of the Ombudsman found that there was no reasonable ground to indict the ALFA Integrated Textile and Development Bank officers. [26] The Office of the Ombudsman held [27] that not all the elements under Section 3(e) [28] of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act existed, citing Quibal v. Sandiganbayan : [29] The accused is a public officer discharging official administrative or judicial functions or private persons in conspiracy with them; The public officer committed the prohibited act during the performance of his official duty in relation to his public position; The public officer acted with manifest partiality, evident bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence; and His actions caused undue injury to the Government or any private party, or gave any party unwarranted benefit, advantage or preference. [30] (Citation omitted) The Office of the Ombudsman pointed out that the Committee on Behest Loans itself stated in its Fortnightly Report that it "did not find any characteristics to classify ALFA [Integrated Textile]'s loans as behest." [31] Furthermore, the Office of the Ombudsman found that the Presidential Commission on Good Government failed to establish with certainty that the value of the real estate, buildings, machinery, and equipment offered by ALFA Integrated Textile to secure its loans were insufficient. [32] For the P25 million loan, the additional security of P45,470,700.00 in chattel mortgages and equipment was given, covered by a trust receipts agreement. The US$2,666,667.00 loan was applied for and released when ALFA Integrated Textile was already managed by a Development Bank-controlled board, and was secured by real estate and chattel mortgages valued at P418,290,800.00. [33] Similarly, the P137 million loan was applied for and released by the bank-controlled board. [34] Nonetheless, as the Office of the Ombudsman found, this loan was given under certain conditions