SC okays prosecution of 3 Imelda nephews for graft

MANILA, Philippines – Three nephews of former first lady Imelda Romualdez-Marcos are set to be charged with graft before the Sandiganbayan over their alleged involvement in a $2-million behest loan from the Development Bank of the Philippines (DBP) in 1980.

In issuing the order to the Office of the Ombudsman yesterday, the Supreme Court voided the Aug. 18, 1998 resolution of then Ombudsman Aniano Desierto, which dismissed the complaint of the Presidential Ad-Hoc Fact-Finding Committee on Behest Loans (FFCBL) against brothers Angel Romualdez, Jose Romualdez and Jose Manuel Romualdez.

“We have to make it clear at the outset that it is not for the Ombudsman to try the case,” read the decision.

“He is merely supposed to establish whether there exists probable cause to file an information in court against the accused. A finding of probable cause merely binds... the suspect to stand trial.

“It is not a pronouncement of guilt. Considering the quantum of evidence needed to support a finding of probable cause, we hold that the Ombudsman gravely abused his discretion when he found such to be lacking here, apart from declaring that the offense charged has prescribed. Probable cause undoubtedly exists.”

In the 14-page decision, the SC ruled a court should determine during trial allegations that the loan was approved with “extraordinary speed.”

“The Ombudsman held that the alleged extraordinary speed in the loan approval was not supported by evidence,” read the decision. 

“However, questions as to the existence of so-called extraordinary speed as a mark of a behest loan and what constitutes extraordinary speed are matters best left to the trial court to decide.

“This it would do upon the evidence presented before it. Such evidence would not only show the time periods involved in the subject transaction but also what is considered as normal speed for the grant of loans in the world of banking.”

The SC said the Romualdez brothers’ relationship to the former first lady is of no consequence to the case they would be facing in court.

“Private respondents Romualdezes balk at their being branded as cronies,” read the decision.

“They insist that they are only distant nephews of former first lady Imelda Marcos. This is irrelevant. Cronies need not even be distant relatives of the Marcoses. It is of no consequence that they are merely distant nephews.

“They may, indeed, not be nephews at all yet still be cronies. Again, these are things that should be threshed out during trial.”

The Court also rejected the Office of the Ombudsman’s argument that case has already prescribed.

“Again, the Ombudsman is mistaken,” read the decision.

“The offense charged has not prescribed. The reckoning point for the prescriptive period of offenses in relation to RA 3019 is well-settled. It was well-nigh impossible for the State, the aggrieved party, to have known the violations of RA 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, we agree with the committee that 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.”

The SC said in cases involving violations of Republic Act 3019 prior to the 1986 EDSA Revolution, the government could not have known of the violations at the time.

“Based on the foregoing, the 10-year prescriptive period should be reckoned from the date of the discovery of the offense,” read the decision.

“In the case under review, the violation should be deemed discovered on June 14, 1996, date of filing of the complaint with respondent Ombudsman after an exhaustive investigation by petitioner committee.

“It is now settled that the filing of such complaint for preliminary investigation tolls the running of the prescriptive period hence, there is no legal obstacle in filing the corresponding information in court.”