04- Engr.
Claro Preclaro vs Sandiganbayan & People (1995) - In the Sandiganbayan, Preclaro raised the issue of Sandigabayan’s
Doctrine:
Petitioner miscontrues the definition of “public officer” in R.A. No. 3019
which, according to Sec. 2(b) thereof ” includes elective and appointive
officials and employees, permanent or temporary, whether in the classified
or unclassified or exemption service receiving compensation, even nominal,
from the government. . . .” The word “includes” used in defining a public
officer in Sec. 2(b) indicates that the definition is not restrictive. The terms
“classified, unclassified or exemption service” were the old categories of
positions in the civil service which have been reclassified into Career Service
and Non- Career Service by PD 807 providing for the organization of the Civil
Service Commission and by the Administrative Code of 1987.
Relevant Facts
- Petitioner Preclaro was employed by the ITDI (Industrial Technology
Development Institute [a division of the DOST] as a Project
Manager/Consultant.
o His job as a Proj. Manager/ consultant was to supervise the
construction of a DOST building in the DOST compound in
Bicutan.
o In particular, his job was to assess the quality of work of the
contractor and to make a report thereof to the DOST for it
to assess any additives/ deductives in the price it is to pay
for the services of the contractor.
- At some point, he was charged in the Sandiganbayan with violation
of Sec. 3(b) of RA 3019 or the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.
o According to Mr. Resoso, Project Engineer for Sta. Maria
Construction Company (a contractor), Preclaro offered
“forget” about deductives, if he could be given 200K (from
the projected 460k profit of SMCC).
o Mr. Resoso conveyed the proposal to Mr. Sta Maria St.
(owner of SMCC).
o Sta. Maria and Resoso reported the bribery to the NBI, after
which an entrapment plan was arranged.
o After a 30minute meeting between the contractors and
Preclaro, the latter received bundles of marked money, at
which point he was apprehended by the NBI and tested for
fluorescent powder residue (as used in the marked money).
o He tested positive and was charged by the SB.
jurisdiction. To back this, he claimed:
o That he is merely a private individual hired by the ITDI on a
contractual basis for a particular project and for a specified period
as evidenced by his contract of services;
o That he was not issued any appointment paper separate therefrom.
o That he was not required to use the bundy clock or to record his
hours or work
o That neither did he take an oath of office
o That guilt was not established beyond reasonable doubt.
- Nonetheless, the SB found him guilty, thus this case.
Issue
DOES THE SANDIGANBAYAN HAVE JURISDICTION OVER PRECLARO,
CONSIDERING HIS CLAIM THAT HE IS NOT A PUBLIC OFFICER? – YES. He is a
public officer, despite being neither elective nor appointive.
Ratio Decidendi
As he was charged with violation of the Anti-graft law, Preclaro raised that
he does not fall under the law’s definition of public officer.
The pertinent statute says:
“Sec. 2 (b) of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act: A public officer
includes elective and appointive officials and employees, permanent or
temporary, whether in the classified, unclassified or exemption service,
receiving compensation, even nominal, from the government…”
Sec 2 uses the word “includes” which means the definition is not restrictive.
The SC then explains that included as well are the definitions under PD 807
(organizing the CSC), namely Career Service and Non-Career Service.
In particular, Preclaro falls under Non-Career Service which is defined as:
“(4) Contractual personnel or those whose employment in the
government is in accordance with a special contract to undertake a
 specific work or job, requiring special or technical skills not available in
the employing agency, to be accomplished within a specific period,”

Therefore, Preclaro falls under the non-career service category of the Civil
Service and still falls under the definition of a public officer.

AS TO THE OTHER DEFENSES:

- The fact that Preclaro is not required to record his working hours by
means of a bundy clock or did not take an oath of office became
unessential considerations

- His duties as project manager is to evaluate the contractor’s

accomplishment reports/ billings. Thus, he has the privilege and
authority to make a favorable recommendation and act favorably in
behalf of the government when he signs acceptance papers and
approves deductives and additives.

- His averment that he could not be prosecuted because his

intervention was not required by law but by a contract of services
entered by him as a private individual contactor is erroneous. His
duties delineated in Annex B of the contract are subsumed under
the description "wherein the public officer in his official capacity has
to intervene under the law” of the offense.

DISPOSITIVE

WHEREFORE, the appealed decision of the Sandiganbayan is hereby

AFFIRMED. SO ORDERED.