518 Phil. 464
CHICO-NAZARIO, J.:
Resident Ombudsman for the Department of National Defense, Atty. Merba A. Waga, conducted a preliminary investigation on the allegations in SAO Report No. 94-98. In a memorandum dated 17 March 1997, Atty. Waga recommended to the then Ombudsman Aniano A. Desierto that a further preliminary investigation be conducted by the Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for the Military (ODOM) on the audit findings and observations of the COA, particularly for findings numbered 1, 2, 3.a, 3.c, 3.d, 3.e, 3.h, and 5.a.
1. Funds obligated in 1984 and 1985 amounting to P153,497,882.40 intended for payment of previous year's accounts payable were used to pay transactions incurred in 1990 and 1991 amounting to P85,854,775.50; and to cover check payments made in 1992 in the amount of P67,643,106.90 in violation of Sec. 85 of PD 1445. Moreover, these funds were not reverted to the unappropriated surplus of the General Fund of the National government in violation of Sec. 33 of PD 1177.2. Check payments amounting to P67,643,106.95 charged against Journal Voucher No. 3159289 dated December 29, 1986 were not accounted for.3.a Procurement of items costing more than P50,000 were not made through public bidding, in violation of COA Circular No. 85-55A. Instead, purchases worth P55,537,282.23 were made through emergency purchase although the items were not urgently needed or absolutely indispensable to prevent immediate danger to, or loss of life or property or to avoid detriment to the public service. As a result, purchase price of at least 131 items of medicines, medical supplies, office and construction supplies in the amount of P10,000,709.00 exceeded the prevailing market price by P6,146,444.29; the excess prices ranging from 4.90% to 1,071.25% per item. Comparison of Purchase Orders revealed a price difference of P356,690.20 on similar items procured by the command.3.b Alterations were noted in the dates of Sales Invoices, Purchase Orders, Requisition and Issue Vouchers (RIVs) and other documents for paid purchases amounting to P19,949,884.50. Moreover, two suppliers who purportedly participated in the canvass as shown in the Canvass Proposals for puchases amounting to P17,692,829.07 denied having quoted the prices indicated in the canvass form nor participated in the canvass.3.c Purchases of medicines and medical supplies in 1990 and 1991 worth P53,998,124.00 were not accounted for. Moreover, the alleged deliveries of medicines and medical supplies at Cavite Naval Hospital and at the Office of the Chief Surgeon amounting to P16,195,519.87 and P23,879,397.00, respectively, were in excess of the normal three-month supply requirement of these offices, in violation of COA Circular No. 85-55A dated September 8, 1985.3.d Construction and asphalting materials amounting to P31,269,562.66 could not be accounted for. No documents could be presented by the concerned officials to show that these materials were actually received by the Phil. Navy units nor were they able to pinpoint the exact location of the projects where these materials were used. Moreover, no approved program of work were submitted for these projects contrary to the Implementing Rules and Regulations of PD 1594. These purchases were made through the Emergency mode of procurement and no bidding was conducted in violation of COA Cir. No. 85-55A dated September 8, 1985.3.e Deliveries of construction materials and supplies used at the Subic Command totaling P10.4M could not be validated since delivery receipts furnished by the command did not indicate the Sales Invoice to which these pertains; and most DR's were not acknowledged by the recipients. Furthermore, the former SUBCOM Supply Accountable Officer certified that the signatures on the documents in support of claims amounting to P3.2M were not genuine signatures. Lastly, P9.3M worth of these construction materials as well as those used at Naval District I in San Fernando, La Union amounting to P1,093,910 were purchased in Metro Manila instead of within the locality of Zambales and La Union, in violation of Section 11 of PD 1342.3.f Office and construction materials worth P12M were substituted with office equipments and supplies and lesser quantity of construction materials without any amendment or changes in the Purchase Orders. Furthermore, items worth P4,498,710.00 were delivered beyond the prescribed date of delivery but liquidated damages amounting to P895,947 was not deducted from the payments made to supplier for items purchased, in violation of Provision III CI.7 of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of PD 1594.3.g The validity of the purchase of various supplies and materials and vehicle/ship spare parts worth P6.88M was not established due to absence of pertinent supporting documents or submission of documents of doubtful authenticity, in violation of Section 4(6) of PD No. 1445.3.h Spare parts amounting to P886,000 were purchased from a supplier who did not quote the lowest price; with a price difference (from that of the lowest bidder) of P85,750. Moreover an overpayment of P13,180 was noted in at least five claims due to erroneous computations. Further, it was noted that hospital supplies amounting to P999,741 were paid in 1992 but the Sales Invoice attached was dated August 26, 1994.3.i Medicines, medical supplies, construction materials, and office supplies delivered were not subjected to quality test, in violation of Sec. 481 of the Government Accounting and Auditing Manual (GAAM). Moreover, no report of inspection of medicines delivered were submitted to COA within 24 hours as required under COA Cir. No. 89-299-A and SEC. 465 of GAAM.3.j The Certification of Availability of Fund on the Purchase Orders dated April to August 1990 in the total amount of P10,560,830.00 were signed by an unauthorized official.4.a Four suppliers who transacted business at HPN for supply of items worth P47,381,428.50 could not be found at their reported business addresses; casting doubt on the legitimacy of the transaction.4.b Purchase Orders amounting to P54,398,743.56 were split to avoid review and approval of higher authorities in violation of COA Cir. No. 76-41 dated July 30, 1976 and Naval Logistics Directive No. 05-88 dated October 17, 1988. Likewise, Purchase Orders for items worth P1,050,740 were not acknowledged by the Supplier contrary to the provisions of COA Cir. No. 78-84 dated August 8, 1978.5.a Twenty-two checks totaling P18,860,945.64 issued on July 30, 1993 were not supported by duly approved disbursement vouchers and were not included in the Report of Checks Issued by Deputized Disbursing Officer (RCIDDO); and all payments were deposited to one bank account.5.b Checks amounting to P26,304,180.70 were dated one day to six months prior to the processing of the related disbursement vouchers, indicative that checks were prepared and issued without the duly processed and approved vouchers in violation of Sec. 4(b) of PD 1445.[7]
The recommended dismissal of the charges against respondents VAdm. Dumangcas, et al. is denied, while the implied recommended continuation of the prosecution of respondents Capt. Batestil, et al. is approved. Otherwise stated, the Resolution dated Dec. 12, 2001 (approved on Mar. 1, 2002) is affirmed in toto, there being no cogent reason to set aside or modify the same.[8]Aggrieved, petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration. The said motion was denied in an order dated 17 September 2003.
x x x The first audit report, SAO Report No. 92-128 was the subject of our earlier Memorandum for the Honorable Ombudsman dated March 21, 1997. Instant Memorandum pertained to the audit report (SAO Report No. 94-98) of the second audit team.[9] (Emphasis supplied.)In fact, the said memorandum incorporated the summary of the COA auditors' findings and observations contained in SAO Report No. 94-98. The memorandum recommended to the Ombudsman a further preliminary investigation on some of the findings in SAO Report No. 94-98 by the ODOM prosecutors which the Ombudsman approved.
One of the findings of the Commission on Audit (COA) in its special audit conducted at the Philippine Navy covering the transactions of the said agency during the years 1990 and 1991 pertain to alleged unaccounted medicines and medical supplies. Further, the Report (SAO Report No. 94-98) indicated over-deliveries of items in violation of COA Circular 85-55-A, dated September 8, 1985.[10]Subsequently, the case was forwarded to the Office of the Special Prosecutor for review. SPO Manzano and Linco evaluated the resolution of the ODOM prosecutors.
But, be that as it may, the undersigned recommends in so far as transactions involving medicine and medical supplies are concerned to hold and so hold the following officer/employees liable. x x xIt is noteworthy that the foregoing transactions involving the purchases of medicines and medical supplies and the funds obligated under Journal Voucher No. 31 in the sum of P153,497,882.40 are the same transactions which were embodied in findings nos. 3.c and 1, respectively, of SAO Report No. 94-98.[12]
x x x x
As previously mentioned, the irregularities did not only cover procurement and purchases of medicines and medical supplies.
For instance, SAO Report No. 94-98 disclosed that payment of some purchases of the Philippine Navy were taken out of funds obligated under Journal Voucher No. 3169289 dated December 29, 1985, intended to pay for the preceding years' accounts payable but for some reasons were unexpended. These funds in the sum of P153,497,882.40 should have been reverted to the unappropriated surplus of the general fund of the national government pursuant to Section 85 of P.D. 1446, but instead of reverting, the Philippine Navy without authority, used P86,864,776.50 out of the said sum in 1992 to pay for purchases incurred in 1990 and 1991. Their failure to so revert constitutes undue injury to the government x x x.[11]
Based on the foregoing, there is no such admission by the COA that the auditors committed a mistake in the conduct of the audit. Besides, the subject matter thereof is the SAO Report No. 92-128 which is totally different from the instant cases.WHEREFORE, in view of the above, complainant respectfully prays that the Respondent be excluded from among the list of persons responsible in the above-captioned case.[13]
- Complainant considers the justification/explanation of Capt. Briones inasmuch as he has no duty to control the disbursement of funds. Further, he is not one of those determined to be responsible under Finding No. 8 of SAO Report No. 92-128 which is the subject of the above-captioned case.
x x x. It may appear that the Ombudsman's one-line note lacks any factual or evidentiary grounds as it did not set forth the same. The state of affairs, however, is that the Ombudsman's note stems from his review of the findings of fact reached by the investigating prosecutor. The Ombudsman, contrary to the investigating prosecutor's conclusion, was of the conviction that petitioners are probably guilty of the offense charged, and for this, he is not required to conduct an investigation anew. He is merely determining the propriety and correctness of the recommendation by the investigating prosecutor, i.e., whether probable cause actually exists or not, on the basis of the findings of fact of the latter. He may agree, fully or partly, or disagree completely with the investigating prosecutor. Whatever course of action that the Ombudsman may take, whether to approve or to disapprove the recommendation of the investigating prosecutor, is but an exercise of his discretionary powers based upon constitutional mandate. x x xThis Court has invariably refrained from interfering with the Ombudsman's discretion in the conduct of preliminary investigation absent a clear case of grave abuse of discretion.[15] The rule is based not only upon respect for the investigatory and prosecutory powers granted by the Constitution to the Office of the Ombudsman but upon practicality as well. Otherwise, the functions of the courts will be grievously hampered by innumerable petitions assailing the dismissal of investigatory proceedings conducted by the Office of the Ombudsman with regard to complaints filed before it, in much the same way that the courts would be extremely swamped if they would be compelled to review the exercise of discretion on the part of the fiscals or prosecuting attorneys each time they decide to file an Information in court or dismiss a complaint by a private complainant.[16]
The fact that the Ombudsman merely wrote his recommendation for the filing of the information against petitioners in a one-line note is not a sufficient basis for this Court to attribute arbitrariness or caprice on the part of respondent.