Presidential Ad Hoc Fact-Finding Committee v Desierto

DOCTRINE

 Section 15 of Article XI of the Constitution applies only to civil actions for recovery of ill-gotten
wealth, and not to criminal cases, such as the complaint against the respondents in OMB-0-96-
0968
 Section 15 of Article XI of the Constitution was originally Section 13 of the proposed Article on
Accountability of Public Officers in Committee Report No. 17 submitted to the Constitutional
Commission by its Committee on Accountability of Public Officers

FACTS

In a resolution dated 14 May 1996, the OMBUDSMAN dismissed OMB-0-96-0968, a complaint filed
against the Philippine Seeds, Inc.,for an alleged behest loan it obtained during the Marcos
administration. Reckoning the prescriptive period from 1969, 1970, 1975 and 1978, when the disputed
transactions were entered into, the OMBUDSMAN rules that the offenses with which respondents were
charged had already prescribed. Its motion for reconsideration having been denied by the
OMBUDSMAN, this action was filed.

In the present case, it was well-nigh impossible for the State, the aggrieved party, to have known of the
violations of R.A. No. 3019 at the time the questioned transactions were made because, as alleged, the
public officials concerned connived or conspired with the "beneficiaries of the loans." Thus, the
prescriptive period for the offenses with which the respondents in OMB-0-96-0968 were charged should
be computed from the discovery of the commission thereof, and not from the day of such commission.

ISSUE

W/n the ombudsman acted with grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the case no. OMB-0-9600968

RULING

SC GRANTED WITH THE PETITION SET ASIDE THE RESOLUTION OF THE OMBUDSMAN

We agree with the OMBUDSMAN that Section 15 of Article XI of the Constitution applies only to civil
actions for recovery of ill-gotten wealth, and not to criminal cases, such as the complaint against the
respondents in OMB-0-96-0968. This is clear from the proceedings of the Constitutional Commission of
1986. What is now Section 15 of Article XI of the Constitution was originally Section 13 of the proposed
Article on Accountability of Public Officers in Committee Report No. 17 submitted to the Constitutional
Commission by its Committee on Accountability of Public Officers.

At the plenary session, Commissioner Hilario G. Davide, Jr., succeeded in having that Section amended.
The amendment made the provision applicable as well to criminal actions arising from, relating or
incident to, or involving ill-gotten wealth. However, on motion for reconsideration by Commissioner
Christian Monsod, who explained that the intention of the Committee was to limit the proposed Section
13 to civil actions, and without objection on the part of Commissioner Davide, the motion for
reconsideration was granted. As a consequence, the amendment of Commissioner Davide regarding the
applicability of the Section to criminal actions was deleted.