[go: up one dir, main page]
Scribd
Upload
135 views2 pages

Republic Vs Cojuangco

1. The case involved a complaint filed in 1990 by the Office of the Solicitor General against members of the Board of Directors of the United Coconut Planters Bank regarding a 1979 investment of P500 million from the Coconut Industry Investment Fund into United Coconut Oil Mills, Inc. 2. The complaint alleged that the investment was manifestly disadvantageous as UNICOM had minimal capitalization and no operating history. As a result of share conversions, the government's investment was reduced by P95 million credited to UNICOM's incorporators. 3. The Supreme Court ruled that the charges under the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act were subject to a 15-year statute of limitations per the law,

Uploaded by

Joseph John Santos Ronquillo
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
135 views2 pages

Republic Vs Cojuangco

1. The case involved a complaint filed in 1990 by the Office of the Solicitor General against members of the Board of Directors of the United Coconut Planters Bank regarding a 1979 investment of P500 million from the Coconut Industry Investment Fund into United Coconut Oil Mills, Inc. 2. The complaint alleged that the investment was manifestly disadvantageous as UNICOM had minimal capitalization and no operating history. As a result of share conversions, the government's investment was reduced by P95 million credited to UNICOM's incorporators. 3. The Supreme Court ruled that the charges under the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act were subject to a 15-year statute of limitations per the law,

Uploaded by

Joseph John Santos Ronquillo
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

Republic vs. Eduardo Cojuangco, et.al.

GR 139930, 26 June 2012


(Prescription)
FACTS: Teodoro D. Regala, Victor P. Lazatin, Eleazar B. Reyes, Eduardo
U. Escueta and Leo J. Palma incorporated the United Coconut Oil Mills,
Inc. (UNICOM ) with an authorized capital stock of P100 million divided
[1]

into one million shares with a par value of P100 per share. UNICOM had
several amendments in its capitalization.The Board of Directors of the
United Coconut Planters Bank (UCPB) composed of respondentsEduardo
M. Cojuangco, Jr., Juan Ponce Enrile, Maria Clara L. Lobregat, Jose R.
Eleazar, Jr., Jose C.Concepcion, Rolando P. Dela Cuesta, Emmanuel M.
Almeda, Hermenegildo C. Zayco, Narciso M. Pineda,Iñaki R. Mendezona,
and Danilo S. Ursua approved Resolution 247-79 authorizing UCPB,
theAdministrator of the Coconut Industry Investment Fund (CII Fund), to
invest not more than P500 millionfrom the fund in the equity of UNICOM
for the benefit of the coconut farmers. Thereafter severalamendments
which increases the capital stock without par value until on September 18,
1979 a new set of UNICOM directors, composed of respondents Eduardo
M. Cojuangco, Jr., Juan Ponce Enrile, Maria Clara L. Lobregat, Jose R.
Eleazar, Jr., Jose Concepcion, Emmanuel M. Almeda, Iñaki R.
Mendezona,Teodoro D. Regala, Douglas Lu Ym, Sigfredo Veloso, and
Jaime Gandiaga, approved another amendmentto UNICOM’s capitalization.
About 10 years later or on March 1, 1990 the Office of the Solicitor General
(OSG) filed a complaint for violation of Section 3(e) of Republic Act
(R.A.) 3019 against respondents, the 1979 members of the UCPB board of
[6]

directors, before the Presidential Commission on Good


Government(PCGG).The OSG alleged that UCPB’s investment in
UNICOM was manifestly and grossly disadvantageous to the government
since UNICOM had a capitalization of only P5 million and it had no track
record of operation. In the process of conversion to voting common shares,
the government’s P495 million investment was reduced byP95 million
which was credited to UNICOM’s incorporators. The PCGG subsequently
referred the complaint to the Office of the Ombudsman which disqualified
the PCGG from conducting the preliminary investigation in the case.

RA 3019; prescription.  Violations falling under Section 3(e) of R.A. 3019 prescribe in fifteen (15)
years as provided under Section 11 of R.A. 3019. Petitioner maintains that, although the charge
against respondents was for violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, its prosecution
relates to its efforts to recover the ill-gotten wealth of former President Ferdinand Marcos and of his
family and cronies. Section 15, Article XI of the 1987 Constitution provides that the right of the State
to recover properties unlawfully acquired by public officials or employees is not barred by
prescription, laches, or estoppel. But the Supreme Court has already settled in Presidential Ad Hoc
Fact-Finding Committee on Behest Loans v. Desierto that Section 15, Article XI of the 1987
Constitution applies only to civil actions for recovery of ill-gotten wealth, not to criminal cases such
as the complaint against respondents in OMB-0-90-2810. Thus, the prosecution of offenses arising
from, relating or incident to, or involving ill-gotten wealth contemplated in Section 15, Article XI of the
1987 Constitution may be barred by prescription. Notably, Section 11 of R.A. 3019 now provides that
the offenses committed under that law prescribes in 15 years. Republic of the Philippines v. Eduardo
M. Cojuangco, Jr., et al., G.R. No. 139930, June 26, 2012.

You might also like