FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 140800. June 5, 2013.]
ATTY. ORLANDO L. SALVADOR, PCGG CONSULTANT, petitioner, vs. HON. ANIANO DESIERTO, OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, RAFAEL SISON, OFELIA CASTELL, ROY JOSEPH Z. VINUYA, ROLANDO M. ZOSA, C/O DBP, ALFONSO ARELLANO, CARLOS J. VALDEZ, AND JOAQUIN DE SEQUERA, ALL DIRECTORS, OFFICERS OF STA. INES STEEL & MINING CORPORATION, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution dated June 5, 2013 which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 140800 (Atty. Orlando L. Salvador, PCGG Consultant vs. HON. ANIANO DESIERTO, Office of the Ombudsman, RAFAEL SISON, OFELIA CASTELL, ROY JOSEPH Z. VINUYA, ROLANDO M. ZOSA, c/o DBP, ALFONSO ARELLANO, CARLOS J. VALDEZ, and JOAQUIN DE SEQUERA, All Directors, Officers of Sta. Ines Steel & Mining Corporation). — Petitioner, as PCGG consultant and coordinator of the Technical Working Group (TWG) of the Presidential Ad-Hoc Committee on Behest Loans, filed with the Office of the Ombudsman a sworn statement, docketed as OMB No. 0-98-0363 wherein respondents were charged with violation of Section 3 (e) and (g) of Republic Act No. 3019, or the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. As claimed by the complainant, respondents were the officers of the Development Bank of the Philippines (DBP) and Sta. Ines Steel & Mining Corporation (SISMC) that were allegedly involved in the grant of a Foreign Currency Loan and Guarantee by the DBP to SISMC. It was contended that said loan was a behest loan for the following reasons: (a) insufficient collateral for the loan, (b) SISMC's lack of capital, and (c) non-feasibility of the project.
In a Resolution dated June 4, 1999, the Office of the Ombudsman dismissed the aforementioned complaint for insufficiency of evidence and prescription of the offense charged. The pertinent portion of the Ombudsman's Resolution is quoted here: CDAcIT
After a careful assessment of the records of this case the undersigned finds the evidence insufficient to warrant the indictment of the respondents officers of DBP and private individuals in court.
Evidence Nos. 3 and 4 of [the] records are mere copies of the minutes of the Board's meeting. The resolution itself is not on the records, thus there is no showing as to who among the members of the Board of Directors approved the aforesaid resolution.
Even assuming that the herein public respondents approved the resolution granting the loan to SISMC, it is not sufficient to indict them in court unless there is a showing that the private and public respondents in applying and approving the loan committed fraud, machination or misrepresentation.
It appears from the records that the loan was granted in the ordinary course of business, it passed through the Industrial Projects Department of DBP (Evidence 19) which also disclosed that there is a feasibility study on the project. Records also failed to show that the loan was granted at the behest of a high ranking government official. Despite the non-execution of the Deed of Mortgage the DBP can still pursue to recover from the SISMC on the basis of the Trust Receipt covering the machineries and equipment funded by the loan and on the basis of the Promissory Notes executed by the SISMC and Cesar de Sequera in a joint and several manner (Evidence 12).
It also appears from the record that the act complained of was committed on June 11, 1980 or almost eighteen (18) years prior to the filing of the instant case on February 17, 1998, hence dismissible on the ground of prescription. CHaDIT
WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is respectfully recommended that the instant case be DISMISSED. 1
Petitioner's motion for reconsideration was denied in an Order 2 dated September 16, 1999.
Hence, petitioner filed the present petition for certiorari under Rule 65, assailing the Resolution dated June 4, 1999 and Order dated September 16, 1999. Petitioner insisted that the Ombudsman committed grave abuse of discretion in (a) deliberately ignoring and/or misappreciating the evidence attached to the complaint and ruling thereon without the benefit of a preliminary investigation, and (b) ruling that the offense charged had prescribed, contrary to jurisprudence. Thus, petitioner prayed that the Court (a) reverse and set aside the assailed Resolutions, and (b) direct the Ombudsman to file the appropriate information against the other respondents. cASTED
In its Comment dated March 31, 2000, the Ombudsman countered that although more recent jurisprudence has held that the prescriptive period of the offense should be counted from its discovery, the complaint in question was also dismissed on the ground of insufficiency of evidence. The Ombudsman likewise averred that it has discretion on whether or not to conduct a preliminary investigation.
Respondents Castell and Vinuya also filed their respective Comments. Apart from their individual defenses, these respondents asserted that the present petition had become moot with the subsequent conduct of preliminary investigation by the Ombudsman in OMB No. 0-98-0363.
In a Consolidated Reply to the Comments of the Ombudsman, Castell, and Vinuya, the PCGG reiterated the prayer in the Petition, claiming that the same had not been mooted. According to the PCGG, the preliminary investigation conducted by the Ombudsman was defective since it had not been furnished with the counter-affidavits of Vinuya and Castell and was prevented from filing reply-affidavits thereto. In a Manifestation, Castell belied the PCGG's claim by presenting proof of service on the PCGG of her counter-affidavit.
In his Comment, respondent Sison argued that the Ombudsman correctly held that the loan granted to SISMC was not a behest loan and that there was no probable cause to hold respondents liable for the offense charged.
Respondent Zosa also filed his Comment wherein, apart from positing defenses personal to him, he maintained that the present petition was rendered moot by the preliminary investigation conducted by the Ombudsman and its subsequent issuances in OMB No. 0-98-0363.
Proceedings in the present case were impeded due to the difficulty encountered by the PCGG in serving respondents with copies of the Petition and supplying their correct addresses, such service being required by the demands of due process and the orderly disposition of this case. Subsequently, the filing of the comments of the other respondents was deemed waived.
Acting on the Petition, we resolve to dismiss the same. HcaATE
From the record, it appears that the Ombudsman conducted a preliminary investigation in this case in the aftermath of this Court's Decision dated October 25, 1999 in G.R. No. 130140, ruling that the prescription of behest loans should be counted from the discovery of the offense and that a preliminary investigation was essential in such cases. During the pendency of the present petition, the Ombudsman issued orders dated August 14 and September 5, 2000 requiring respondents to file their counter-affidavits to the complaint in OMB No. 0-98-0363. Thereafter, the Ombudsman issued a Resolution dated October 24, 2000, the dispositive portion of which reads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is respectfully recommended that an Information for violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. 3019 be filed against Rafael A. Sison, former Chairman of DBP with the Sandiganbayan. The case against Ofelia Castell, Roy Joseph Vinuya, Rolando Zosa, Alfonso Arellano, Carlos Valdes and Joaquin de Esguera [sic] is hereby DISMISSED for insufficiency of evidence. 3
We held in Osmeña III v. Social Security System that "[a] case or issue is considered moot and academic when it ceases to present a justiciable controversy by virtue of supervening events, so that an adjudication of the case or a declaration on the issue would be of no practical value or use. In such instance, there is no actual substantial relief which a petitioner would be entitled to, and which would be negated by the dismissal of the petition." 4
Considering that the present petition prays for (a) the reversal of the Ombudsman's Resolution dated June 4, 1999 and Order dated September 16, 1999 in OMB No. 0-98-0363 on the ground that the same were issued without the benefit of a preliminary investigation, and (b) a directive from this Court to the Ombudsman to file the appropriate Information, it is readily apparent that the petition had been rendered moot by the Ombudsman's subsequent conduct of a preliminary investigation and its issuance of the Resolution dated October 24, 2000 in OMB No. 0-98-0363. TCIEcH
Petitioner's objections to the preliminary investigation itself or the Resolution dated October 24, 2000 should be the subject of a separate action and cannot be resolved in these proceedings.
WHEREFORE, the present petition is DISMISSED for being moot and academic.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) EDGAR O. ARICHETADivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 24-25.
2.This Order was approved by the Ombudsman on September 24, 1999. (Rollo, pp. 27-29.)
3.Id. at 570.
4.559 Phil. 723, 735 (2007).