Facts:

• Joel Nemensio M. Macasil, a Materials Engineer at the Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH) in Tacloban City, was investigated by the Commission on Audit (COA) Regional Office No. VIII.
• The investigation, initiated on February 7, 2005, focused on infrastructure projects from 2003 and 2004.
• Delays occurred due to the non-submission of contract documents, leading the Regional Legal and Adjudication Office (RLAO) to issue suspension notices.
• Upon compliance, the RLAO found identical project descriptions, prompting an in-depth audit by the Fraud Audit and Investigation Office (FAIO).
• The FAIO discovered that 32 projects did not comply with approved plans and were overpaid by P52,178,645.18 due to overstated accomplishment reports.
• The Public Assistance and Corruption Prevention Office Fact-Finding Unit filed a complaint against Macasil and other officials for violations of Section 3(e) of RA No. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act) and Falsification under Article 171 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC).
• Macasil was accused of certifying Statements of Work Accomplished (SWA) for 32 projects despite alleged overstatements.
• Macasil denied the charges, stating his role was limited to quality control and he was not involved in the payment process or initial investigation.
• The Office of the Ombudsman (Visayas) found probable cause to indict Macasil for 23 counts of violation of Section 3(e) of RA No. 3019 and 26 counts of Falsification of Public Documents.
• Macasil's motion for reconsideration was denied, leading to this Petition for Certiorari.

Issue:

• (Unlock)

Ruling:

• The Supreme Court granted the petition, annulling and setting aside the Consolidated Resolution dated May 8, 2015, of the Office of the Ombudsman (Visayas).
• The resolution had found probable cause against Joel Nemensio M. Macasil for...(Unlock)

Ratio:

• The Supreme Court noted that while the Office of the Ombudsman has broad discretion in investigating and prosecuting criminal complaints, this discretion is not absolute.
• The Court intervenes in cases of grave abuse of discretion, defined as a capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment equivalent to an excess or lack of jurisdiction.
• The Court found grave abuse of discretion by the Ombudsman in this case.
• Probable cause requires facts sufficient to engender a well-founded belief that a crime has been committed and that the respondent is probably guilty.
• The elements of the offense under Section 3(e) of RA No. 3019 include: (a) the accused must be a public officer discharging official functions; (b) he must have acted with manifest partiality, evident bad faith, or inexcusable negligence; and (c) his action caused undue injury to any party or gave unwarranted benefits.
• The Court found that M...continue reading