Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PRESIDENTIAL AD HOC FACT-FINDING COMMITTEE ON BEHEST LOANS v. ANIANO A. DESIERTO AS OMBUDSMAN

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	GR No. 206357 2014-11-25	PRESIDENTIAL COMMISISON ON GOOD GOVERNMENT v. OMBUDSMAN CONCHITA CARPIO-MORALES VELASCO JR., J.
In the 1999[15] and 2011[16] cases of Presidential Ad Hoc Fact-Finding Committee on Behest Loans v. Desierto, the Court, in said separate instances, reversed the ruling of the Ombudsman that the prescriptive period therein began to run at the time the behest loans were transacted and instead, it should be counted from the date of the discovery thereof.
	GR No. 135715 2011-04-13	PRESIDENTIAL AD HOC FACT- FINDING COMMITTEE ON BEHEST LOANS v. ANIANO A. DESIERTO AS OMBUDSMAN PEREZ, J.
At the outset, the provision found in Section 15, Article XI of the 1987 Constitution that "the right of the State to recover properties unlawfully acquired by public officials or employees, from them or from their nominees or transferees, shall not be barred by prescription, laches or estoppels," has already been settled in Presidential Ad Hoc Fact-Finding Committee on Behest Loans v. Desierto (G.R. No. 130140),[24] where the Court held that the above cited constitutional provision "applies only to civil actions for recovery of ill-gotten wealth, and not to criminal cases."[25]
	GR NO. 139675 2006-07-21	PRESIDENTIAL COMMISSION ON GOOD GOVERNMENT v. ANIANO DESIERTO AZCUNA, J.
In the comment[15] dated November 8, 1999, the Ombudsman conceded that the issue of when behest loan cases prescribe has been settled in Presidential Ad Hoc Fact-Finding Committee on Behest Loans v. Desierto[16] wherein the Court ruled that the prescriptive period commences from the date the Committee discovered the crime, and not, as previously concluded by the Ombudsman, from the date the loan documents were registered in the Register of Deeds.
	GR NO. 135350 2006-03-03	PRESIDENTIAL AD HOC FACT-FINDING COMMITTEE ON BEHEST LOANS v. OMBUDSMAN CALLEJO, SR., J.
In any case, as mentioned earlier, the present petition must be dismissed for having been rendered moot and academic. In the case of Presidential Ad Hoc Fact-Finding Committee on Behest Loans v. Desierto,[14] docketed as G.R. No. 130140, the Court had the occasion to resolve the same issue as the one presented in the case at bar.