Macasil v. Fraud Audit and Investigation Office
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: In 2005, the Commission on Audit (COA) Regional Office No. VIII investigated infrastructure projects of the Tacloban City Sub-District Engineering Office for calendar years 2003 and 2004. The Fraud Audit and Investigation Office (FAIO) subsequently examined the transactions and discovered that 32 infrastructure projects were overpaid by P52,178,645.18 due to bloated accomplishment reports. Petitioner Joel Nemensio M. Macasil, a Materials Engineer of the Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH), was implicated for allegedly certifying that the Statements of Work Accomplished (SWA) for these projects were in accordance with approved plans despite the overstatements. Procedural History: Based on the FAIO findings, the Public Assistance and Corruption Prevention Office (PACPO) Fact-Finding Unit filed a complaint against Macasil and other officials. On May 8, 2015, the Office of the Ombudsman (Visayas) issued a Consolidated Resolution finding probable cause to indict Macasil for 23 counts of violation of Section 3(e) of Republic Act (RA) No. 3019 and 26 counts of Falsification of Public Documents under Article 171, paragraph 4 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC). Macasil's Motion for Reconsideration was denied, leading to the present petition. The Petition: Macasil filed a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65, arguing that the Ombudsman committed grave abuse of discretion. He contended that as a Materials Engineer, his certification in the SWAs was limited to the quality of materials used and their compliance with testing requirements. He asserted that quantity control and the certification of the percentage of completion were the primary responsibilities of the Project Engineer and Quantity Engineers under DPWH Circular No. 49 and the DPWH Staffing Manual, and thus he could not be held liable for bloated quantity reports.
Issue(s)
Whether the Office of the Ombudsman committed grave abuse of discretion in finding probable cause against Macasil for violation of Section 3(e) of RA 3019. Whether the Office of the Ombudsman committed grave abuse of discretion in finding probable cause against Macasil for Falsification under Article 171(4) of the RPC.
Ruling
The petition is GRANTED. The Consolidated Resolution dated May 8, 2015, of the Office of the Ombudsman (Visayas) is ANNULLED and SET ASIDE.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Court held that the Ombudsman committed grave abuse of discretion because the evidence failed to establish a prima facie case for the crime charged. Regarding Section 3(e) of RA 3019, the Court found that Macasil did not act with manifest partiality, evident bad faith, or gross inexcusable negligence. The SWAs contained three distinct certifications: the contractor certified the work amount, the Project Engineer certified that work items were accomplished according to plans (quantity), and Macasil, as Materials Engineer, only certified that materials passed quality tests. Under DPWH Circular No. 49 and the DPWH Staffing Manual, the Materials Engineer's responsibility is strictly limited to the quality of materials, while quantity control is the duty of Quantity Engineers and Project Engineers. Since the FAIO's findings focused on bloated quantities and not the quality of materials, Macasil's certification was truthful and within his legal mandate. On Issue 2: For the charge of Falsification under Article 171(4) of the RPC, the Court ruled that Macasil made no untruthful statement because he never certified the percentage of completion or the quantity of work accomplished. The Court emphasized that criminal intent (dolo) was absent, as Macasil's actions were consistent with his defined official duties. Consequently, the Ombudsman's finding of probable cause was not moored on evidence and constituted a whimsical exercise of judgment that necessitated judicial intervention to protect the petitioner from groundless prosecution.
Main Doctrine
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. While the Ombudsman is endowed with wide latitude in its prosecutory prerogatives, this power is not absolute and must be exercised within the bounds of the evidence and the law. When an indictment for graft or falsification is based on a certification that does not legally cover the alleged irregularity—such as a Materials Engineer certifying quality when the issue is quantity—the finding of probable cause is considered a whimsical and capricious exercise of judgment amounting to grave abuse of discretion.