S E A R C H
 
BENCHMARK
COURTNEWS
BOOKS
 
 
 
 
HOME > PUBLICATIONS > BENCHMARK > MARCH2008
Benchmark Online March 2008
SC Upholds Dismissal of Graft Case Against ICPI Officers
By Jay B. Rempillo

The Supreme Court has affirmed the Office of the Ombudsman’s dismissal of the graft case against the Board of Directors and officers of the Integrated Circuits Philippines, Inc. (ICPI) for availing of an alleged behest PhP12 million loan in 1980 from the Development Bank of the Philippines.

In an 18-page decision penned by Justice Eduardo Antonio B. Nachura, the Court En Banc denied the petition of the Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG)’s Presidential Ad Hoc Fact-Finding Committee on Behest Loans to nullify the September 3, 1999 resolution of the Ombudsman dismissing the criminal complaint against the ICPI officers and the June 6, 2000 order denying reconsideration.

The Court said that there was no convincing proof that the contracts were grossly disadvantageous to the government, or that they were entered into to give ICPI unwarranted benefits and advantages.

The Court held that the contracts between ICPI and DBP were not behest loans. It stressed that ICPI was not under-capitalized and the loan was not under-collateralized at the time of its approval as the records show ICPI had PhP11,500,000 in paid up capital as of April 23, 1980.  The Court added that DBP’s approval “can hardly be depicted as one done with undue haste” as “the processing period of more than four months is inconsistent with the claim that the loan was hastily granted.”

In August 6, 1980, DBP granted ICPI (then Comptronics Philippines, Inc.) an industrial loan (foreign currency loan) of US$1,352,400 or PhP10,1143,000. Subsequently, ICPI was granted an interim loan of PhP1,786,000. Among the ICPI Directors was the late Chief Justice Querube Makalintal, who was then Speaker of the Interim Batasang Pambansa at the time of the loan. Chief Justice Makalintal died during the pendency of the case, hence, the dismissal of the charge against him.

“The Ombudsman can hardly be faulted for not wanting to proceed with the prosecution of the offense, convinced that he does not possess the necessary evidence to secure a conviction,” said the Court. (GR No. 145184, Presidential Ad Hoc Fact-Finding Committee on Behest Loans v. Desierto, March 14, 2008)

This site is maintained and updated by the SC Public Information Office