Sandiganbayan upholds dismissal of Ongpin graft case

The Sandiganbayan has dismissed with finality a graft case filed against businessman Jaime Ongpin over alleged anomalous loans.

In an 11-page resolution denying the motion for reconsideration of the prosecution panel handling the case, the anti-graft court said government lawyers failed to provide new evidence that might sway the decision of the justices.

“After going through the instant motion, we find that there are no substantial arguments that would warrant a reversal of our May 28, 2014 Reolution and in fact, the issues raised by the prosecution are the very same matters that have previously been passed upon and resolved by the Court in the assailed resolution,” the decision, penned by Justice Samuel Martires, said.

The case, which was filed in connection with the P660 million in alleged behest loans granted to Ongpin by the Development Bank of the Philippines (DBP) in 2009, was earlier dismissed in 2014, after the same court granted Ongpin and his co-accused’s motion to quash the case.

The graft cases were filed in January 2013 after the Ombudsman found out that DBP extended two loans amounting to P150 million and P510 million in April and November 2009, respectively, to Deltaventure Resources, Inc. (DVRI) even though DVRI was:

– undercapitalized;

– the values of the securities did not comply with the collateral-to-loan ration prescribed by the Central Bank and the DBP’s own credit policy memoranda;

– there are indications that corporate layering was resorted to; and

– the proceeds of the second loan were used to purchase DBP-owned stocks in Philex Mining Corporation, although the private company was not licensed by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) as a securities dealer, with indications of insider trading.

The Ombudsman, in filing the case before the Sandiganbayan, said the loans were used to help Ongpin purchase the Philex shares owned by DBP, whose stocks were also used as collateral for the loans from DBP.

The Office of the Ombudsman filed a motion for reconsideration in June 2014, pointing out, among others, that the dismissal was premature, noting that “insufficiency of evidence may only be made after the prosecution rests its case.”

However, the Sandiganbayan's special third division said the motion lacked merit.

“Worth noting is the prosecution's argument that the doctrine of primary jurisdiction does not apply in this case because the complaint filed and resolved by the Office of the Ombudsman is criminal in nature and only the Ombudsman can make a determination of probable cause and therefore beyond the competence of the BSP or the Monetary Board as a regulatory agency,” it said in its resolution.

Just as in the initial decision, two members—Justice Maria Cristina Cornejo and Justice Oscar Herrera, Jr.—dissented with the majority.

They said that the dismissal is an “unwanted turnaround” and “constitutes a premature appreciation of evidence not yet formally presented and offered,” thereby “violating the right of plaintiff People of the Philippines to due process of law.” —Patricia Denise Chiu/KBK, GMA News