CASE DIGEST
Macasil v. Fraud Audit
and Investigation Office-Commission on Audit
G.R. No. 226898 (Resolution), [May 11, 2021]
EN BANC, LOPEZ, M.V
Ombudsman; RA 3019;
Probable Cause; Preliminary Investigation;Grave Abuse of Discretion
Probable cause for filing a criminal
information requires facts sufficient to engender a well-founded belief that a
crime has been committed and that the respondent is probably guilty thereof.
Additionally, for charges under Section 3(e) of RA No. 3019 (Anti-Graft and
Corrupt Practices Act) and falsification of public documents, specific elements
must be proven, including the accused's position, manifestation of partiality
or bad faith, and the resulting injury or benefit.
The COA Regional Office No. VIII investigated infrastructure projects of the Tacloban City Sub-District Engineering Office and found 32 projects to be non-compliant with approved plans, resulting in overpayment due to inflated accomplishment reports. Subsequently, a Complaint was filed against Materials Engineer Joel Nemensio M. Macasil and other officials for violating Section 3(e) of RA No. 3019 and Article 171 of the RPC. Macasil, denying the charges, argued that as a Materials Engineer, his role was in quality control, not certifying Statements of Work Accomplished (SWA), which was the responsibility of the Project Engineer. Macasil claimed he had no involvement in recommending payment or signing disbursement vouchers. Despite not being included in the investigation's fact-finding phase, the Office of the Ombudsman (Visayas) found probable cause to indict Macasil for multiple counts of violation of RA No. 3019 and falsification of public documents under the RPC.
Whether or not the Ombudsman (Visayas)
committed grave abuse of discretion in finding probable cause for violation of
Section 3(e) of RA No. 3019, as amended, and paragraph 4, Article 171 of the
RPC.
YES. The Court found grave abuse of discretion on the
part of the Ombudsman regarding the charges against Materials Engineer Joel
Nemensio M. Macasil. While generally, the Court does not interfere with the
Ombudsman's findings unless certain conditions are met, such as protecting the
accused's constitutional rights or when the charges lack merit, in this case,
the elements required for violation of Section 3(e) of RA No. 3019 and
falsification of public documents were not established. Macasil's role as a Materials
Engineer did not entail certifying completion or compliance with project plans;
instead, his responsibilities focused on ensuring the quality of materials
used. The evidence did not support the Ombudsman's contention that Macasil made
false statements in his certifications, nor did it show that he abused his
official position to commit falsification. Furthermore, in cases involving
public officials, it must be demonstrated that the accused took advantage of
their official position to commit the alleged offenses. Failure to establish
these elements may invalidate the charges and preclude the finding of probable
cause. Consequently, there was no prima facie case to support probable cause
for the charges against Macasil under the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act
and falsification laws.
No comments:
Post a Comment