G.R. No. 226898 - Macasil vs. Fraud Audit and Investigation Office

On February 7, 2005, the Commission on Audit Regional Office No. VIII conducted an investigation into infrastructure projects of the Tacloban City Sub-District Engineering Office covering the calendar years 2003 and 2004.
The investigation encountered delays due to non-submission of contract documents, prompting the Regional Legal and Adjudication Office (RLAO) to issue notices of suspension to the responsible officers pending compliance.

Upon eventual compliance, the RLAO reviewed the documents and noted that several projects had identical or nearly identical descriptions, an observation considered a “red flag” necessitating further examination.
The Fraud Audit and Investigation Office (FAIO) subsequently examined the transactions and discovered that 32 infrastructure projects did not conform to the approved plans and were overpaid based on bloated or overstated accomplishment reports amounting to over P52 million.

FAIO’s evaluation detailed discrepancies in reported accomplishments across 32 infrastructure projects. The report included extensive particulars such as percentage of completion, variances, and quantified overpayments for each project (e.g., Completion of 4 CL Elem. School, Multi-Purpose Buildings, drainage systems, and various road improvements).
Each project’s Statements of Work Accomplished (SWAs) were certified by three parties—the contractor, the project engineer (responsible for verifying work accomplishment), and the materials engineer (certifying quality of materials used).

Based on the FAIO’s findings, a Complaint was filed against Materials Engineer Joel Nemensio M. Macasil and other officials for violations of Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act) and for Falsification under Article 171 of the Revised Penal Code.
Macasil was accused of certifying that the reported and paid accomplishments in the SWAs were in accordance with approved plans, materially affecting the accuracy of reported project achievements despite evidence that the figures were bloated or overstated.

Macasil maintained that, as a Materials Engineer, his responsibilities were confined to ensuring quality control—such as testing, sampling, and verifying material quality—and did not extend to verifying the quantity of work completed or the certifications regarding project accomplishments.
He emphasized that the project engineer was primarily responsible for checking quantities and overall work compliance with plans and specifications. Moreover, Macasil contended that he was not involved in any overpayment decisions, did not sign any disbursement vouchers, and was not part of the fact-finding phase.

On May 8, 2015, the Office of the Ombudsman (Visayas) issued a Consolidated Resolution, finding sufficient probable cause to indict Macasil for 23 counts under Section 3(e) of RA 3019 and 26 counts of falsification of public documents.
The resolution was based on the premise that Macasil’s certification in the SWAs contributed to the alleged overstatement of project progress, despite his limited role in matters of quantity and his absence from the investigative process until after the complaint was filed.

Whether there exists probable cause to indict Joel Nemensio M. Macasil for violating Section 3(e) of RA No. 3019 and for falsification under Article 171 of the Revised Penal Code.

The central inquiry is whether the evidence supports the contention that Macasil’s certification amounted to manifest partiality, evident bad faith, or gross inexcusable negligence.

Whether Macasil’s role as a Materials Engineer, which focuses exclusively on quality control of construction materials, precludes his liability for alleged overstatements in the Statements of Work Accomplished (SWAs).

The issue arises from the differentiation between responsibilities related to quality versus those related to quantity and overall project completion.

Whether the preliminary investigation conducted by the Office of the Ombudsman unduly expanded its mandate and inflicted unwarranted prejudice by failing to protect the accused against groundless charges.

This involves evaluating if the provisional inquiry met the constitutional requirement of shielding the innocent from precipitate and burdensome prosecution.