Title
Macasil vs. Fraud Audit and Investigation Office - Commission on Audit
Case
G.R. No. 226898
Decision Date
May 11, 2021
A materials engineer was accused of graft and falsification for certifying overstated project accomplishments, but the Supreme Court ruled no probable cause, citing his limited role and lack of evidence.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 226898)

Factual Background

The case originates from an investigation conducted by the Commission on Audit (COA) into infrastructure projects associated with the Tacloban City Sub-District Engineering Office for the years 2003 and 2004. The investigation disclosed substantial discrepancies in the Statements of Work Accomplished (SWAs) for 32 projects, leading to findings of overpayment totaling approximately P52,178,645.18. The FAIO's follow-up investigation culminated in a complaint against Macasil, a Materials Engineer, alleging he illegally certified inaccurate SWAs, contributing to significant financial losses and corruption.

Ombudsman's Findings

On May 8, 2015, the Office of the Ombudsman found probable cause to indict Macasil for 23 counts of violations of Section 3(e) of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act and 26 counts of Falsification of Public Documents under Article 171 of the Revised Penal Code. The Ombudsman concluded he had acted with manifest partiality, evident bad faith, or gross inexcusable negligence due to discrepancies in the certified work accomplishments.

Petition for Certiorari

Macasil challenged the Ombudsman’s resolution via a petition for certiorari, arguing that the Ombudsman had gravely abused its discretion in determining probable cause. He contended that the findings failed to demonstrate the required elements of corruption and falsification, emphasizing that his role was limited to certifying the quality of materials used, not the actual work accomplished.

Grave Abuse of Discretion Defined

The court described "grave abuse of discretion" as a patent and gross misjudgment indicative of an excess or lack of jurisdiction. This encompasses actions taken in an arbitrary fashion, lacking legal foundation or justification, warranting judicial intervention to safeguard individual rights and proper administration of justice.

Ruling on Probable Cause

The Supreme Court found that the actions of the Ombudsman indeed constituted grave abuse of discretion. The core issue was whether there was sufficient evidence to sustain a belief that a crime had occurred and that Macasil was likely guilty. The court emphasized the importance of ensuring that individuals are not subjected to unwarranted prosecution without clear and convincing evidence.

Analysis of Charges

In examining the charges of violating the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, the court noted that while Macasil was a public officer, the evidence did not substantiate the claims of manifest partiality, evident bad faith, or gross negligence. The certifications in the SWAs indicated the contractor was responsible for reporting work accomplishments and the project engineer for certifying their compliance with approved plans, thus limiting Macasil's liability.

Certification Responsibility and Good Faith Presumption

Macasi

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.