Time of audit= In

this case, the SBN correctly accorded credence to

the COA Report. As will be shown later,
, in the conduct of an audit, the length of time the actual
examination occurs is dependent upon the documents involved. If
the documents are voluminous, then it necessarily follows that
more time would be needed. What is important is that the findings
of the audit should be sufficiently supported by evidence.

Accuracy of COA = Verily, the veracity of the Audit Report

(Exhibit “BB”) cannot be relied upon, as it both cast clouds of doubt
in their respective conclusions. A separate and more thorough
audit would be required to dispel any uncertainties and to arrive at
respondent’s true and correct accountability. The shortage of funds
was clearly not indubitably established. Until such audit is
conducted, the two audit reports cannot be used to prove or
disprove any shortage in respondent’s cash and accounts.

Petitioner also imputes fraud to the audit team for making "it
appear that the items released by the Division Office of Davao Del
Sur on 21 February 1991 were compared with and became the
basis for the purchase of exactly the same items on 20 February
1991." 31 The COA Audit Report
It is apparent that, with other vouchers and supporting
documents still found after audit, the test of absolute certainty was
not met and that various records were inadvertently left out during
the audit examination.
The audit examination conducted left much to be desired in terms
of thoroughness and completeness as disclosed by the errors that
surfaced subsequently. In fact, it is not clear how long the audit
examination took. The audit team claimed that it took all of one
(1) week. Their report, however, bears only one date, July 26,
1978, and could have taken only one day.
It is also to be noted that some items in petitioner's accountability
were disallowed by the audit team for lack of a pre-audit although
apparently they were in payment of valid obligations of the
municipality and were subsequently passed in audit. Thus, the
Sandiganbayan had occasion to observe: "The prosecution does
not dispute the legality and validity of the claims so paid but the
COA auditors took to task the accused-treasurer at the time of the
audit examination for this total sum of P8,108.09 because the
vouchers covering the payment were not yet approved on pre-
audit. But it is plain that the claims were not either contested. No
wonder then that accused Catalino Y. Tinga was fighting for the
recognition of these payments he made in good faith as not having
been misappropriated by him in reality" (Decision, p. 15).