Discovery Rule Prevails: Prescription for Behest Loans Starts Upon Discovery, Not Commission

In cases involving hidden or undiscovered offenses, especially those related to government corruption, the statute of limitations doesn’t begin the moment the crime is committed. Instead, the prescriptive period starts when the offense is actually discovered by authorities. This crucial principle ensures that those who conceal their illegal acts, particularly in complex financial schemes, cannot evade justice simply by the passage of time. This Supreme Court case clarifies this ‘discovery rule’ in the context of behest loans, emphasizing the importance of timely investigation and prosecution from the moment of actual discovery.

TLDR; The Supreme Court clarified that for hidden offenses like behest loans, the prescription period starts upon discovery of the offense by the State, not when the loan was granted. This ensures that concealed corrupt practices are not shielded by statutes of limitations before they are even brought to light.

G.R. No. 130140, October 25, 1999

INTRODUCTION

Imagine government funds, intended for national development, being siphoned off through dubious loans granted under questionable circumstances. This is the specter of “behest loans” – a term that evokes images of cronyism and corruption during past administrations in the Philippines. The question then arises: can those potentially responsible for these irregular transactions be held accountable decades later, or does the statute of limitations shield them from prosecution?

This very question was at the heart of Presidential Ad Hoc Fact-Finding Committee on Behest Loans vs. Desierto. The case revolved around loans granted to Philippine Seeds, Inc. (PSI) in the 1960s and 70s by the Development Bank of the Philippines (DBP). Years later, the Presidential Ad Hoc Fact-Finding Committee on Behest Loans (COMMITTEE) filed a complaint against PSI directors and DBP officials for violations of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act (R.A. 3019). The Ombudsman dismissed the case, arguing that the offenses had already prescribed. The Supreme Court was then asked to determine whether the prescriptive period should be counted from the date the loans were granted or from the date of discovery of these alleged behest loans by the COMMITTEE.

LEGAL CONTEXT: PRESCRIPTION AND THE DISCOVERY RULE

In the Philippines, the right of the State to prosecute crimes is not limitless. The concept of prescription dictates that after a certain period, the State loses its right to file criminal charges. This is enshrined in Act No. 3326, which governs prescription for offenses punished by special laws, like R.A. 3019. Section 2 of Act No. 3326 states:

“Sec. 2. Prescription shall begin to run from the day of the commission of the violation of the law, and if the same be not known at the time, from the discovery thereof…”

This provision establishes a general rule: prescription starts from the commission of the crime. However, it carves out an exception known as the “discovery rule.” If the crime is “not known at the time” of its commission, the prescriptive period begins only upon its discovery. The interpretation of “not known at the time” and the scope of the discovery rule are crucial in cases involving potentially concealed offenses.

The Ombudsman, in dismissing the case, relied on the Court of Appeals decision in People v. Dinsay, arguing that since the loan transactions were documented in public instruments, they were “reasonably knowable” from the start. The Ombudsman also cited People v. Sandiganbayan, asserting that prescription began from the filing of the loan application itself, as the process involved multiple public officials who could have discovered any irregularities.

However, the Supreme Court has previously recognized the “discovery rule” in other cases, such as People v. Duque, involving illegal recruitment, and People v. Monteiro, concerning failure to register with the Social Security System. In Duque, the Court emphasized that for crimes under special laws, which are not inherently immoral or obviously criminal, prescription should run from the “discovery of the unlawful nature of the constitutive act or acts.” In Monteiro, the Court highlighted the danger of allowing offenders to escape punishment by successfully concealing their offenses until the prescriptive period lapses.

CASE BREAKDOWN: UNRAVELING THE BEHEST LOANS PRESCRIPTION

The saga began with President Fidel V. Ramos issuing Administrative Order No. 13 in 1992, creating the Presidential Ad Hoc Fact-Finding Committee on Behest Loans. This COMMITTEE was tasked to inventory and investigate behest loans, which were defined by Memorandum Order No. 61 as loans granted under irregular circumstances, often under-collateralized, under-capitalized, or involving cronies of high-ranking officials. Philippine Seeds, Inc. was identified in the COMMITTEE’s Fourteenth Report as one of the corporations with behest loans.

Acting on President Ramos’ directive to pursue legal action, the COMMITTEE filed a complaint with the Ombudsman in 1996 against the directors of PSI and DBP officials who approved the loans. The complaint alleged violations of Section 3(e) and (g) of R.A. 3019, specifically causing undue injury to the government and entering into transactions grossly disadvantageous to the government.

The Ombudsman, however, dismissed the complaint outright based on prescription. He reasoned that the transactions were public, and therefore, the prescriptive period began from the dates the loans were granted in 1969, 1975, and 1978. The COMMITTEE sought reconsideration, which was denied, leading them to file a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court, in its decision penned by Chief Justice Davide, Jr., sided with the COMMITTEE. The Court clarified that while Section 15 of Article XI of the Constitution on imprescriptibility applies only to civil actions for recovery of ill-gotten wealth, the prescriptive period for criminal offenses under special laws like R.A. 3019 is governed by Act No. 3326.

Critically, the Supreme Court distinguished the present case from Dinsay and Sandiganbayan. The Court stated:

“In the present case, it was well-nigh impossible for the State, the aggrieved party, to have known 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.’”

The Court emphasized that the “discovery rule” in Act No. 3326 is applicable when the crime is not reasonably knowable at the time of commission, especially in cases of conspiracy and concealment. The Court found that the Ombudsman committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the case without even requiring counter-affidavits and without properly considering the date of discovery.

The Supreme Court then ordered the Ombudsman to resume the preliminary investigation, directing him to consider the “discovery rule” and determine when the offenses were actually discovered by the COMMITTEE.

PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: WHAT THIS MEANS FOR FUTURE CASES

This case reinforces the application of the “discovery rule” in Philippine jurisprudence, especially in cases involving complex financial crimes and government corruption. It clarifies that mere documentation of transactions in public records does not automatically equate to “knowledge” by the State, particularly when there are allegations of conspiracy and concealment.

For government agencies tasked with investigating corruption, this ruling provides a legal basis to pursue cases even if the transactions occurred decades ago, provided that the discovery of the offense was recent. It underscores the importance of thorough investigations to uncover hidden or complex schemes that may not be immediately apparent from public records.

However, the “discovery rule” is not a blanket exception to prescription. The State still bears the burden of proving that the offense was genuinely “not known” at the time of commission and that there was due diligence in discovering it. The date of discovery must be clearly established and justified.

Key Lessons:

• Discovery Rule is Key: For offenses not immediately apparent, the prescriptive period starts upon discovery by the State, not the date of commission.
• Burden of Proof on the State: The State must prove genuine lack of knowledge and due diligence in discovering the offense.
• Public Documents Not Always Sufficient: Mere existence of public documents doesn’t automatically mean the offense was “knowable.” Conspiracy and concealment are crucial factors.
• Importance of Timely Investigation: Government agencies must act promptly upon discovery of potential offenses to ensure successful prosecution within the prescriptive period.

FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS (FAQs)

1. What is a behest loan?

A behest loan is generally understood as a loan granted by government financial institutions under irregular circumstances, often to cronies or associates of high-ranking officials, and typically characterized by inadequate collateral, undercapitalization of the borrower, and potential undue influence in the approval process.

2. What is the statute of limitations or prescription period for graft and corruption offenses in the Philippines?

For violations of R.A. 3019, the prescriptive period is generally fifteen (15) years, as amended by Batas Pambansa Blg. 195. However, this can be affected by factors like the “discovery rule.”

3. When does the prescriptive period for a crime begin?

Generally, prescription starts from the day the crime is committed. However, for offenses not known at the time of commission, it starts from the date of discovery.

4. What is the “discovery rule” in prescription?

The “discovery rule” is an exception to the general rule of prescription. It states that for certain offenses, particularly those that are concealed or not immediately apparent, the prescriptive period only begins to run when the offense is actually discovered by the authorities.

5. Does the “discovery rule” apply to all crimes in the Philippines?

The “discovery rule” is generally applied to offenses under special laws where the unlawful nature of the act is not immediately obvious or where there is concealment. Its applicability depends on the specific circumstances of each case.

6. What kind of evidence is needed to prove “discovery” of an offense?

Evidence of discovery can include official reports, testimonies, documents, or any information that demonstrates when the authorities became aware of the commission of the offense. The burden of proof lies with the prosecution to show when discovery occurred.

7. Can public documents shield crimes from prosecution due to prescription?

Not necessarily. While public documents make transactions accessible, the Supreme Court clarified in this case that the mere existence of public documents does not automatically mean the offense was “knowable” from the start, especially in cases of conspiracy or concealment. The “discovery rule” can still apply.

8. What should government agencies do to ensure timely prosecution of corruption cases?

Government agencies should establish robust internal controls, conduct regular audits, and act promptly on any red flags or information suggesting potential corruption. Upon discovery of potential offenses, thorough and timely investigations are crucial to gather evidence and file charges within the prescriptive period, as counted from the date of discovery.

ASG Law specializes in Anti-Graft and Corruption Law and Government Investigations. Contact us or email hello@asglawpartners.com to schedule a consultation.