G.R. No. 246942 - People vs. Josephine Angsico, Virgilio vs. Dacalos, Felicisimo F. Lazarte, Jr., and Noel A. Lobrido, Accused; Josephine Casenas-Hottle, et al.

The case originates from an Information charging five accused-appellants—Josephine Angsico (now Casenas-Hottle), Virgilio V. Dacalos, Felicisimo F. Lazarte, Jr., Josephine T. Espinosa, and Noel A. Lobrido—with allegations of having caused the payment of excess public funds to Triad Construction and Development Corporation.
The excess payment controversy centers on the construction contract for the Pahanocoy Sites and Services Project in Bacolod City, Negros Occidental, under the National Housing Authority (NHA).

Initially, in 1990, the contract for Phase I of the Pahanocoy Project was awarded to A.C. Cruz Construction with a contract price of PHP 7,686,507.55, later increased to PHP 8,397,225.09.
Work commenced under A.C. Cruz, which received advances and progress billings, but delays led to the rescission of its contract on May 20, 1991.
An official inventory on August 12, 1991, quantified the accomplished work at 40% (PHP 3,433,713.10) and the remaining work at 59.11% (PHP 4,963,511.99).

On March 17, 1992, the unfinished portion was awarded to Triad Construction at PHP 9,554,837.32, despite the quantified remaining work and applicable price escalation prescribed by COA Circular No. 87-267-A.
The allowable ceiling, computed by adding the escalated allowable amount (PHP 2,605,843.79) to the remaining balance (PHP 4,963,511.99), should have totaled PHP 7,569,355.78.
Two sets of Abstracts of Physical Accomplishment were prepared:

The First Abstract showed a due amount of PHP 330,075.76.
The Second Abstract, reflecting supposed additional works, resulted in a net amount due of PHP 1,280,964.20.

The difference of PHP 2,455,615.01 between the payment made (PHP 10,024,970.79) and the proper ceiling amount constituted the focal point of the irregularity.

Accused-appellants, while discharging their official roles in the NHA, were charged with:

Violating COA Circular No. 87-267-A by approving a contract price and processing the additional work payment without the required prior presidential approval.
Allowing, through a conspiracy-like act, the preparation and approval of the Second Abstract even though no contract variation order was issued to authorize the additional works.

The prosecution established that their actions, done with manifest partiality and evident bad faith (or by gross inexcusable negligence), resulted in undue injury to the Government and unwarranted benefits to Triad Construction.
Several key witnesses—including Engr. Candido M. Fajutag, COA officials, and the accused themselves—testified on matters such as:

The lack of a proper contract variation order despite knowing that additional works required formal authorization.
The alteration and unverified issuance of the Second Abstract.
Procedural shortcuts taken to meet extraneous deadlines (e.g., compliance with World Bank funding schedules).

During the trial, the prosecution presented evidence proving the existence of irregularities and the absence of mandatory documentation for additional works.
All accused pleaded not guilty at arraignment; however, following the death of two co-accused (Balao and Cruz), their cases were dismissed by the Sandiganbayan.
The Sandiganbayan, in its Decision (December 7, 2018) and subsequent Resolution (March 28, 2019), found the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt for the violation of Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019.
Later, appeals were filed, and petitions for certiorari under Rule 65 were submitted by the accused-appellants; these were denied by the Court in a March 4, 2020 Decision.

Whether the accused-appellants are guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019 (the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act) by:

Causing the NHA to pay Triad Construction an excessive amount by processing a billing (the Second Abstract) that exceeded the ceiling price with escalation.
Approving the Second Abstract without the necessary contract variation order thereby exhibiting manifest partiality, evident bad faith, or gross inexcusable negligence.

Whether the reliance on delegation of responsibilities, as encapsulated in the Arias doctrine, can absolve a head officer (e.g., Angsico) from personal liability in light of irregularities that should have prompted further inquiry.

The sufficiency of the evidence linking each accused-appellant individually to the irregularities in the processing of the additional works and resulting overpayment.