G.R. No. L-28594. June 30, 1971.
EDILBERTO M. RAMOS, ET AL., petitioners-appellants, vs. HON. BENJAMIN H. AQUINO, ET AL., respondents-appellees.

FACTS

Petitioners, who were officials of the Philippine Army Finance Center, filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition in the lower court to restrain the Provincial Fiscal of Rizal from conducting a preliminary investigation against them for alleged malversation through falsification of public documents. The investigation stemmed from vouchers that had already been audited and finally approved by the Auditor General. Petitioners argued that the Auditor General’s constitutional power to examine, audit, and settle all government accounts is exclusive. They contended that his final approval of the vouchers, which had become irrevocable, precluded any subsequent criminal inquiry by the fiscal, as this would constitute a review of a settled account in violation of the Administrative Code.
The Provincial Fiscal denied petitioners’ motion to quash, asserting that his authority to investigate criminal liability exists independently of the Auditor General’s administrative findings. The lower court dismissed the petition, ruling that the fiscal was merely determining whether a crime had been committed based on the vouchers, not reviewing the audit settlement. The court emphasized that allowing the Auditor General to bar criminal prosecutions would arrogate judicial power. Petitioners appealed directly to the Supreme Court.

ISSUE

Whether the Provincial Fiscal’s conduct of a preliminary investigation for malversation based on vouchers already finally approved by the Auditor General constitutes an encroachment on the constitutional powers of the Auditor General.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court’s dismissal, holding that the Auditor General’s constitutional and statutory powers are administrative and audit-related, distinct from the criminal investigative and prosecutorial functions of the fiscal. The Auditor General’s duty is to examine the legality and propriety of expenditures and to bring irregularities to the attention of administrative officers. His final settlement of an account is conclusive only for administrative and accounting purposes under the executive branch. It does not foreclose a separate criminal investigation into whether the acts constituting the settlement involved falsification or malversation. Criminal liability is determined by the courts based on evidence gathered through proper legal channels, including investigations by prosecutorial officers. The fiscal’s inquiry does not reopen or review the account for audit purposes but examines the underlying facts to ascertain criminal culpability. To hold otherwise would improperly confer upon the Auditor General a judicial function to absolve criminal acts, which is vested solely in the judiciary. The Court also noted that injunctive relief is generally not available to restrain a preliminary investigation.