1 / 177

Forensic Compliance Audit: An Introduction

Presented by:. Forensic Compliance Audit: An Introduction. ALBERTO A. BERNARDO, CPA, Esq., CESO I Deputy Executive Secretary, Office of the President. Association of Government Internal Auditors, Inc. (AGIA) 10 October 2013. O R D E R O F P R E S E N T A T I O N.

cynthia-nolan
Download Presentation

Forensic Compliance Audit: An Introduction

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Presented by: Forensic Compliance Audit: An Introduction ALBERTO A. BERNARDO, CPA, Esq., CESO I Deputy Executive Secretary, Office of the President Association of Government Internal Auditors, Inc. (AGIA) 10 October 2013

  2. O R D E R O F P R E S E N T A T I O N I. Audit Process II. Review and Compliance Procedure III. Assets, Expenses and/or Net Worth Manifestly Out of Proportion to Disposable Funds Relatives in Government Divestment Public Access to SALN Implied Repeal

  3. Office of the President Internal Audit Office I. Audit Process 1. Compliance Audit To determine the degree of compliance with (1) laws, regulations, (2) managerial policies, (3) systems and processes of government, including compliance with (4) accountability measures, (5) ethical standards and (4) contractual obligations. [Sec. 8., Ch. 3, Title V, Bk. IV, EO 292 s. 1987, the “Administrative Code 1987,” 25 July 1987 and DBM Circular Letter No. 2008-8, “National Guidelines on Internal Control Systems, 23 October 2008; Item 4.1, Chapter 1, Part I, DBM Circular Letter No. 2011-5, “Philippine Government Internal Audit Manual “(PGIAM), 19 May 2011, p.9; 270]

  4. Audit Reporting Office of the President Internal Audit Office I. Audit Process Audit Engagement Planning Audit Execution Audit Follow-up

  5. I. Audit Process Office of the President Internal Audit Office 2. Audit Engagement Planning What to Audit PLANNING • Understanding the program and project, system and processes • Determine the audit objective, scope, criteria and evidence • Develop the audit plan and audit program • Determine the Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) • Determine the resources required for the audit How to Audit EXECUTION What to Report REPORTING What to Follow-up FOLLOW-UP

  6. I. Audit Process Office of the President Internal Audit Office 3. Audit Execution What to Audit PLANNING How to Audit EXECUTION • Entry Conference • Conduct compliance audit • a. Gather and analyze evidence • b. Compare conditions with criteria • c. Determine probable cause(s) • d. Prepare working papers • Conduct system/process audit • a. Gather and analyze evidence • b. Compare conditions with criteria • c. Determine root cause(s) • d. Prepare working papers • Exit conference What and How to Report REPORTING What to Follow-up FOLLOW-UP

  7. I. Audit Process Office of the President Internal Audit Office 4. Audit Reporting What to Audit PLANNING How to Audit EXECUTION What and How to Report REPORTING 1. Develop audit findings a. Criteria (laws and standards) b. Condition (findings of facts) c. Conclusion (conclusion of facts) d. Cause (probable cause(s) or root cause(s)) 2. Develop audit recommendations What to Follow-up FOLLOW-UP

  8. Office of the President Internal Audit Office I. Audit Process 4. Audit Reporting 4.1. Develop Audit Findings 4.1.1. Criteria - The standards against which condition is compared; standards shall include, among others, laws, rules and regulations, policies, orders, guidelines, procedures, plans, targets and contractual obligations.[1.3.1(a), Chapter II, Part II, DBM Circular Letter No. 2011-5, “Philippine Government Internal Audit Manual” (PGIAM), 19 May 2011, p. 126; 271]

  9. Office of the President Internal Audit Office I. Audit Process 4. Audit Reporting 4.1. Develop Audit Findings 4.1.2. Criteria, Hierarchy of Authority a) “Constitutional provisions; b) “Laws, rules, and regulations on public governance and accountability, and applicable jurisprudence; c) “Government policies, standards, guidelines, and regulatory issuances; d) “Standards and other issuances of intergovernmental organizations such as the United Nations’ specialized committees and agencies; and . . .

  10. Office of the President Internal Audit Office I. Audit Process 4. Audit Reporting 4.1. Develop Audit Findings 4.1.2. Criteria, Hierarchy of Authority (continuation) e) “Relevant or applicable standards and best practices in governance, accountability, and operations, both local and international, such as the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) and other officially recognized organizations and associations.” [5.6, Chapter 1, Part I, DBM Circular Letter No. 2011-5, Philippine Government Internal Audit Manual” (PGIAM), 19 May 2011, p.25]

  11. Office of the President Internal Audit Office I. Audit Process 4. Audit Reporting 4.1. Develop Audit Findings 4.1.3. Condition - A fact, supported by substantial evidence, (includes consequence, effects or impact); this is also referred to as the “findings of facts”. [1.2.2(a); 1.2.3.(a); 1.3.1(b),Chapter II, Part II, DBM Circular Letter No. 2011-5, “Philippine Government Internal Audit Manual” (PGIAM), 19 May 2011, p. 126; 271]

  12. Office of the President Internal Audit Office I. Audit Process 4. Audit Reporting 4.1. Develop Audit Findings 4.1.4. Condition, Findings of Facts a) “Similarly, it is a basic tenet of due process that the decision of a government agency must state the facts and the law on which the decision is based. xxx Facts and circumstances, as well as the why’s, the what’s and the how’s of the disallowance were patently missing, inaccurate or incomplete.” (underscoring supplied) [Albert vs. Gangan, G.R. No. 126557, 6 March 2001]

  13. Office of the President Internal Audit Office I. Audit Process 4. Audit Reporting 4.1. Develop Audit Findings 4.1.4. Condition, Findings of Facts (continuation) [underscoring supplied] [Albert vs. Gangan, G.R. No. G.R. No. 126557, 6 March 2001] a) “There has to be factual basis why the expenditure is alleged to be fraudulentorwhy was there a misrepresentation. Liability depends upon the wrong committed and not solely by reason of being the head of a government agency. x xx But as to why and how the disbursements of funds in this case was considered disadvantageous must be duly supported by findings of facts.”

  14. I. Audit Process Office of the President Internal Audit Office 4. Audit Reporting 4.1. Develop Audit Findings 4.1.4. Condition, Findings of Facts b) “She accepted the secondhand typewriter, contrary to the requirement to buy brand new units, and allowed payment for them at the price of brand new units. She admitted that the specification for the typewriters should be brand new.” (Dugayon vs. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 147333, 12 August 2004)

  15. I. Audit Process Office of the President Internal Audit Office 4. Audit Reporting 4.1. Develop Audit Findings 4.1.4. Condition, Findings of Facts c) “Thus, if there is an irregularity in the performance of this duty, they may be held liable for any loss that is incurred by the government as a consequence thereof. In this case, there was such irregularity when petitioner and other members of the Team attested to the 100% completion of the projects notwithstanding their undisputed deficiencies.” [Leycano vs. Commission on Audit, G.R. No. 154665, 10 February 2006]

  16. Office of the President Internal Audit Office I. Audit Process 4. Audit Reporting 4.1. Develop Audit Findings 4.1.5. Condition, Evidence supplied) [Caunan vs. People of the Philippines and Sandiganbayan, G.R. Nos. 181999 & 182001-04, 2 September 2009 and Joey P. Marquez vs. The Sandiganbayan-Fourth Division and People of the Philippines, G.R. Nos. 182020-24, 2 September 2009] a) “At the barest minimum, the evidence presented by the prosecution, in order to substantiate the allegation of overpricing, should have been identical to the walistingting purchased in 1996-1998. x xx because only then could a determination have been made to show that the disadvantage was so manifest and gross as to make public official liable under Section 3(g) of R.A. No. 3019.” (underscoring

  17. Office of the President Internal Audit Office I. Audit Process 4. Audit Reporting 4.1. Develop Audit Findings 4.1.5. Condition, Evidence (continuation) a) “However, these conclusions were based on incompetent evidence. Most obvious would be the market price of walistingting in Las Piñas City which was used as proof of overpricing in Parañaque City. The prosecution should have presented evidence of the actual price of theparticular walistingting purchased by petitioners and the other accused at the time of the audited transaction or, at theleast, an approximation thereof.” (under-scoring supplied) [Caunanvs. People of the Philippines and Sandiganbayan, and Joey P. Marquez vs. The Sandiganbayan-Fourth Division and People of the Philippines, G.R. Nos. 182020-24, 2 September 2009]

  18. Office of the President Internal Audit Office I. Audit Process 4. Audit Reporting 4.1. Develop Audit Findings 4.1.5. Condition, Evidence (continuation) the Philippines and Sandiganbayan, and Joey P. Marquez vs. Sandiganbayan-Fourth Division and People of the Philippines] a) “The audit team reached a conclusion of gross overpricing based on documents which, at best, would merely indicate the present market price of walistingting of a different specification, purchased from a non-supplier of Parañaque City, and the price of walistingtingpurchases in Las Piñas City. Effectively, the prosecution was unable to demonstarate the requisite burden of proof, i.e., proof beyond reasonable doubt, in order to overcome the presumption of innocence in favor of petitioners.”(emphasis from original) [Caunan vs. People of

  19. Office of the President Internal Audit Office I. Audit Process 4. Audit Reporting 4.1. Develop Audit Findings 4.1.5. Condition, Evidence b) “a) the identities of the suppliers or sellers; b) the availability of stock sufficient in quantity to meet the requirements of the procuring agency; c) the specifications of the items which should match those involved in the finding of overpricing; d) the purchase/contract terms and conditions which should be the same as those of the questioned transaction.”[Nava vs. Palattao, G.R. No. 160211, 28 August 2006 citing Commission on Audit Memorandum Order No. 97-012, 31 March 1997]

  20. Office of the President Internal Audit Office I. Audit Process 4. Audit Reporting 4.1. Develop Audit Findings 4.1.5. Condition, Evidence (continuation) b) “Anyway, the logical sequence of events was clearly indicated in the COA Report: ‘1.5.1. Obtained samples of each laboratory tools and devices purchased x xx.’ ‘1.5.2. Bought (sic) and presented these samples to reputable business establishments in Davao City x xx.’ . . .

  21. Office of the President Internal Audit Office I. Audit Process 4. Audit Reporting 4.1. Develop Audit Findings 4.1.5. Condition, Evidence (continuation) b) ‘1.5.3. Available items which were exactly the same as the samples presented were purchased from AMESCO and Berovan Marketing Incorporated, the business establishments which quoted the lowest prices.’ x xx.” [Nava v. Palattao, G. R. No. 1602011, 28 August 2006]

  22. I. Audit Process Office of the President Internal Audit Office 4. Audit Reporting 4.1. Develop Audit Findings 4.1.5. Condition, Evidence (continuation) b) [Nava v. Palattao, G. R. No. 1602011, 28 August 2006] Total P 380,013.60

  23. Office of the President Internal Audit Office I. Audit Process 4. Audit Reporting 4.1. Develop Audit Findings 4.1.5. Condition, Evidence (continuation) b) “These documents were included in the Formal Offer of Evidence submitted to the Sandiganbayan. Petitioner was likewise presented an opportunity to controvert the findings of the audit team during the exit conference held at the end of the audit x xx.” [Nava v s. Palattao, G.R. No. 160211, 28 August 2006]

  24. Office of the President Internal Audit Office I. Audit Process 4. Audit Reporting 4.1. Develop Audit Findings 4.1.6. Conclusion - Evaluation of the criteria and the conditions to determine: (1) the degree of compliance or non-compliance with laws, regulations and policies; (2) the control effectiveness or ineffectiveness; and (3) the efficiency, effectiveness, ethicality, and economy of agency operations. [1.3.1(c), Chapter II, Part II, DBM Circular Letter No. 2011-5, “Philippine Government Internal Audit Manual” (PGIAM), 19 May 2011, p. 127]

  25. Office of the President Internal Audit Office I. Audit Process 4. Audit Reporting 4.1. Develop Audit Findings 4.1.7. Conclusion, Conclusion of Facts a) “Conclusion of facts is defined as ‘an inference drawn from the subordinate or evidentiary fact.’” [Sixth Edition (1990), Black’s Law Dictionary, p. 290; 1.2.2 (b); 1.3.1(c), Chapter II, Part II, DBM Circular Letter No. 2011-5, “Philippine Government Internal Audit Manual” (PGIAM), 19 May 2011, p. 123;124;127; 271]

  26. Office of the President Internal Audit Office 26 I. Audit Process 4. Audit Reporting 4.1. Develop Audit Findings 4.1.7. Conclusion, Conclusion of Facts b) “A conclusion of law is a determination by a judge or ruling authority regarding the law that applies in a particular case.” [Galeos vs. People of the Phil., G.R. Nos. 174730-37 and Ong vs. People of the Phil., G.R. No. 174845-52, 9 February 2011]

  27. Office of the President Internal Audit Office 27 I. Audit Process 4. Audit Reporting 4.1. Develop Audit Findings 4.1.8. Cause - The probable cause or root cause of the condition and the substantial evidence used as bases of audit recommendation. [1.3.1(d), Chapter II, Part II DBM Circular Letter No. 2011-5, “Philippine Government Internal Audit Manual” (PGIAM), 19 May 2011, p. 127; 271]

  28. I. Audit Process Office of the President Internal Audit Office 28 4. Audit Reporting 4.1. Develop Audit Findings 4.1.9. Cause, Proximate Cause a) “Art. 2176. Whoever by act or omission causes damage to another, there being fault or negligence, is obliged to pay for the damage done. Such fault or negligence, if there is no pre-existing contractual relation between the parties, is called a quasi-delict and is governed by the provisions of this Chapter.” (underscoring supplied) [Chapter 2, Title XVII, Civil Code of the Philippines]

  29. I. Audit Process Office of the President Internal Audit Office 29 4. Audit Reporting 4.1. Develop Audit Findings 4.1.9. Cause,Proximate Cause b) “Art. 2180. x xx x xx The State is responsible in like manner when it acts through a special agent, but not when the damage has been caused by the official to whom the task done properly pertains, in which case what is provided is Article 2176 shall be applicable. x xx.” [underscoring supplied] (Article 2180, Chapter 2, Title XVII, Civil Code of the Philippines)

  30. I. Audit Process Office of the President Internal Audit Office 30 4. Audit Reporting 4.1. Develop Audit Findings 4.1.9. Cause,Proximate Cause c) “Art. 2179. x xx But if his negligence was only contributory, the immediate and proximate cause of the injury being the defendant’s lack of due care, the plaintiff may recover damages, but the courts shall mitigate the damages to be awarded.” [underscoring supplied] (Chapter 2, Title XVII, Civil Code of the Philippines)

  31. I. Audit Process Office of the President Internal Audit Office 31 4. Audit Reporting 4.1. Develop Audit Findings 4.1.9. Cause,Proximate Cause d) “One of the tests for determining the existence of proximate cause is the foreseeability test, viz.: ‘x xx - Where the particular harm was reasonably foreseeable at the time of the defendant’s misconduct, his act or omission is the legal cause thereof. Foreseeability is the fundamental test of the law of negligence. x xx.’” (Agusan Del Norte Cooperative, Inc. vs. Balen, G.R. No. 173146, 25 November 2009)

  32. I. Audit Process Office of the President Internal Audit Office 32 4. Audit Reporting 4.1. Develop Audit Findings 4.1.9. Cause,Proximate Cause e) “[T]he proximate legal cause is that acting first and producing the injury, either immediately or by setting other events in motion, all constituting a natural and continuous chain of events, x xx the final event in the chain immediately effecting the injury as a natural and probable result of the cause which first acted, . . .

  33. I. Audit Process Office of the President Internal Audit Office 33 4. Audit Reporting 4.1. Develop Audit Findings 4.1.9. Cause,Proximate Cause (continuation) e) under such circumstances that the person responsible for the first event should, as an ordinary prudent and intelligent person, have reasonable ground toexpect at the moment of his act or default that an injury to some person might probably result therefrom.” [underscoring supplied] (Dumayag vs. People, G.R. No. 172778, 26 November 2012)

  34. I. Audit Process Office of the President Internal Audit Office 34 4. Audit Reporting 4.1. Develop Audit Findings 4.1.10. Cause, Intervening Cause a)“’If the intervening cause is one which in ordinary human experience is reasonably to be anticipated or one which the defendant has reason to anticipate under the particular circumstances, the defendant may be negligence among other reasons, because of failure to guard against it; or the defendant may be negligent only for that reason.’” [italics in the original; underscoring supplied] (Phoenix Construction, Inc. vs. The Intermediate Appelate Court, G.R. No. L-65295, 10 March 1987)

  35. I. Audit Process Office of the President Internal Audit Office 35 4. Audit Reporting 4.1. Develop Audit Findings 4.1.10. Cause, Intervening Cause b) “’The risk created by the defendant may include the intervention of the foreseeable negligence of others. … [T]he standard or reasonable conduct may require the defendant to protect the plaintiff against ‘that occasional negligence which is one of the ordinary incidents of human life, and therefore to be anticipated.’” (italics in the original) [Phoenix Construction, Inc. vs. The Intermediate Appelate Court, G.R. No. L-65295, 10 March 1987]

  36. I. Audit Process Office of the President Internal Audit Office 36 4. Audit Reporting 4.1. Develop Audit Findings 4.1.10. Cause, Intervening Cause c) “What the Petitioner describes as an ‘intervening cause’ was no more than a foreseeable consequence of the risk created by the negligent manner in which the truck driver had parked the dump truck.” (DyTeban Trading, Inc. vs. Ching, G.R. No. 161803, 4 February 2008 citing Phoenix Construction, Inc. vs. IAC)

  37. Office of the President Internal Audit Office I. Audit Process 37 4. Audit Reporting 4.1. Develop Audit Findings 4.1.11. Cause, Probable Cause a) “Firstly, a finding of probable cause needs only to rest on evidence showing that more likely than not a crime has been committed and there is enough reason to believe that it was committed by the accused. x xx A finding of probable cause merely binds over the suspect to stand trial. It is not a pronouncement of guilt.” (italics in the original; underscoring supplied) [Ganadenvs. Honorable Office of the Ombudsman, G.R. Nos. 169359-61, 1 June 2011; Galario vs. Office of the Ombudsman, et. al., G.R. No. 166797, 10 July 2007]

  38. Office of the President Internal Audit Office VI. Audit Process 38 4. Audit Reporting 4.1. Develop Audit Findings 4.1.11. Cause, Probable Cause b) “Logically, affidavits and evidence presented during a preliminary investigation must at least show these elements of the crime and the particular participation of each of the respondents in its commission. Otherwise, there would be no basis for a well-founded belief that a crime has been committed, and that the persons being charged are probably guilty thereof. (underscoring supplied) [Tan, Jr. vs. Matsuura and Tanjutco, G.R. No. 179003, Tan, Jr. vs. Cua, G.R. No. 195816, 9 January 2013]

  39. I. Audit Process Office of the President Internal Audit Office 4. Audit Reporting 4.1. Develop Audit Findings 4.1.11. Cause, Probable Cause c) “All heads of offices have to rely to a reasonable extent on their subordinates and on the good faith of those who prepare bids, purchase supplies, or enter into negotiations. x xxThere has to be some added reason why he should examine each voucher in such detail. x xxThere should be other grounds than the mere signature or approval appearing on a voucher to sustain a conspiracy charge and conviction.” (underscoring supplied) [Arias vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 81563, 19 December 1989]

  40. I. Audit Process Office of the President Internal Audit Office 4. Audit Reporting 4.1. Develop Audit Findings 4.1.11. Cause, Probable Cause d) “Petitioner might have indeed been lax and administratively remiss in placing too much reliance on the official reports submitted by his subordinate (Engineer Enriquez), but for conspiracy to exist, it is essential that there must be a conscious design to commit an offense. Conspiracy is not the product of negligence but of intentionality on the part of cohorts.” [Magsucivs. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. L-101545, 3 January 1995]

  41. I. Audit Process Office of the President Internal Audit Office 4. Audit Reporting 4.1. Develop Audit Findings (continuation) 4.1.11. Cause, Probable Cause d) “Fairly evident, however, is the fact that the action taken by Magsuciinvolved the very functions he had to discharge in the performance of his official duties. There has been no intimation at all that he had foreknowledge of any irregularity committed by either or both Engr. Enriquez and Ancla.” (underscoring supplied) [Magsucivs. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. L-101545, 3 January 1995]

  42. I. Audit Process Office of the President Internal Audit Office 4. Audit Reporting 4.1. Develop Audit Findings 4.1.11. Cause, Probable Cause (continuation) d) “When, however, that infraction consists in the reliance in good faith, albeit misplaced, by a head of office on a subordinate upon whom the primary responsibility rests, absent a clear case of conspiracy, the Arias doctrine must be held to prevail.” [Magsuci vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. L-101545, 3 January 1995]

  43. Office of the President Internal Audit Office 43 I. Audit Process 4. Audit Reporting 4.1. Develop Audit Findings 4.1.11. Cause, Probable Cause e) “Petitioner, as head of the agency, cannot be held personally liable for the disallowance simply because he was the final approving authority of the transaction in question and that the officers/employees who processed the same were directly under his supervision.” (Albert vs. Gangan, G.R. No. 126557, 6 March 2001;Salva vs. Carague, G.R. No. 157875, 19 December 2006 )

  44. Office of the President Internal Audit Office I. Audit Process 4. Audit Reporting 4.1. Develop Audit Findings 4.1.11. Cause, Probable Cause (continuation) e) “He has to rely mainly on the certifications, recommendations and memoranda of his subordinates in approving the loan. The processing, review and evaluation of the loan application passes through the responsible and authorized officers of the CMP Task Force.”(underscoring supplied) Albert vs. Gangan, G.R. No. 126557, 6 March 2001]

  45. Office of the President Internal Audit Office I. Audit Process 4. Audit Reporting 4.1. Develop Audit Findings 4.1.11. Cause, Probable Cause (continuation) e) “We have consistently held that every person who signs or initials documents in the course of transit through standard operating procedures does not automatically become a conspirator in a crime which transpired at the stage where he had no participation. His knowledge of the conspiracy and his active and knowing participation therein must be proved by positive evidence.”(underscoring supplied) [Albert vs. Gangan, G.R. No. 126557, 6 March 2001]

  46. Office of the President Internal Audit Office I. Audit Process 4. Audit Reporting 4.1. Develop Audit Findings 4.1.11. Cause, Probable Cause (continuation) e) “In fact, petitioner immediately filed a complaint before the Ombudsman against the subordinate employees who appeared to be responsible for the fraud. He also directed the filing of a civil case against the originator and other persons responsible for misrepresentation. All these acts are indicative that he had no knowledge of the fraudulent scheme perpetrated by certain officials or employees of his agency.” (underscoring supplied) [Albert vs. Gangan, G.R. No. 126557, 6 March 2001]

  47. I. Audit Process Office of the President Internal Audit Office 4. Audit Reporting 4.1. Develop Audit Findings 4.1.11. Cause, Probable Cause f) “It should be noted that the disallowance fell under Mobilization and Demobilization, and Earthfill and Compaction expenses, as appearing in the Approved Agency Estimates (AAE) [now ABC]. x xx [P]etitionerhad nothing to do with the preparation and the computation of the AAE. Therefore, she should not have been held liable for the amounts disallowed during the post-audit.” (initial in bracket supplied; underscoring supplied) [Salvavs.Carague, G.R. No. 157875, 19 December 2006]

  48. VI. Audit Process Office of the President Internal Audit Office 4. Audit Reporting 4.1. Develop Audit Findings 4.1.11. Cause, Probable Cause g) “[T]here was no inconsistency in alleging both the presence of conspiracy and gross inexcusable negligence, because the latter was not simple negligence. Rather the negligence involved a willful, intentional, and conscious indifference to the consequences of one’s actions or omissions.” [Bacasmas vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 189343, Gaviola vs. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 189369, Cesa vs. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 189553, 10 July 2013 citing Albert vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 164015, 26 February 2009]

  49. Office of the President Internal Audit Office 49 VI. Audit Process 4. Audit Reporting 4.1. Develop Audit Findings 4.1.11. Cause, Probable Cause h) “Gross inexcusable negligence is negligence characterized by the want of even slight care; acting or omitting to act in a situation where there is a duty to act, not inadvertently but willfully and intentionally, with a conscious indifference to consequences in so far as other persons may be affected.” (emphases in the original) [Jaca vs. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 166967, Gaviola vs. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 166974, Cesa vs. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 167167, 28 January 2013]

  50. Office of the President Internal Audit Office 50 VI. Audit Process 4. Audit Reporting 4.1. Develop Audit Findings 4.1.11. Cause, Probable Cause (continuation) h) “The duties and responsibilities that the occupancy of a public office carry and the degree of relationship of interdependence of the different offices involved here determine the existence of conspiracy where gross inexcusable negligence was the mode of commission of the offense.” (Jaca vs. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 166967, January 2013; Gaviola vs. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 166974, 28 January 2013; and Cesa vs. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 167167, 28 January 2013)

More Related