View full case

ENGINEER CLARO J. PRECLARO v. SANDIGANBAYAN

FACTS:

The petitioner in this case was charged before the Sandiganbayan with a violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. The charge stemmed from an incident where the petitioner, who was then the Project Manager/Consultant of the Chemical Mineral Division, Industrial Technology Development Institute (ITDI), Department of Science and Technology (DOST), allegedly requested or demanded the amount of P200,000 as part of his expected profit in connection with the construction of a government building. It was alleged that the construction of the building was jointly funded by the Philippine and Japanese Governments and that the petitioner had to intervene under the law in his capacity as Project Manager/Consultant. The petitioner pleaded not guilty to the charges and after trial, the Sandiganbayan found him guilty beyond reasonable doubt and sentenced him accordingly. The antecedent facts showed that the petitioner was employed by the ITDI under a contract of services to supervise the construction of the said building, and DOST contracted the services of the Jaime Sta. Maria Construction Company for the construction. The Solicitor General narrated that the petitioner made overtures to the project engineer of the construction company, proposing that expenses in a change order should be deductive instead of additive, and that he wanted P200,000, a portion of the contractor's profit. An entrapment operation was set up, and on June 8, 1990, the project engineer delivered an attache case containing the money to the petitioner.

The case involves the petitioner, who was a private individual hired by the ITDI on a contractual basis for a particular project. He was accused of violating the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act (R.A. No. 3019) and was subsequently convicted by the Sandiganbayan. The petitioner argues that he is not a public officer as defined by the law because he was neither elected nor appointed to a public office. He maintains that he is merely a private individual hired by the ITDI. The petitioner claims that he was not issued any appointment paper and did not have to use a bundy clock or take an oath of office. However, the court disagrees with the petitioner's arguments, stating that the definition of "public officer" under the law is not restrictive and includes both elective and appointive officials and employees, whether in the classified or unclassified or exemption service, who receive compensation from the government. The court also explains that the Non-Career Service, to which the petitioner belongs, includes individuals who are hired on a contractual basis or for the duration of a particular project.

The petitioner in this case is a project manager hired by the Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH) to supervise and evaluate the construction project. The petitioner argues that he should not be considered a public officer under the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act because he is a contractual personnel and his duties are performed under a contract of services. He also argues that the prosecution failed to establish his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The Sandiganbayan, however, ruled that the petitioner falls under the non-career service category of the Civil Service and is considered a public officer. It also found that the petitioner's duties as project manager include making favorable recommendations, approving deductives and additives, and signing acceptance papers, among others, which constitute the elements of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. The Sandiganbayan further held that the prosecution has established the petitioner's guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The petitioner appeals these rulings to the Supreme Court.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the petitioner falls within the definition of a public officer under the Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.

  2. Whether the prosecution has proven the guilt of the petitioner beyond reasonable doubt.

  3. Whether the failure of the petitioner to arrange meetings with the contractor weakens the cause against him.

  4. Whether the percentage demanded by the petitioner is too high.

  5. Whether the petitioner's demand for a percentage is justified despite the alleged deductive changes made by the contractor.

  6. Whether the petitioner's role as part of the technical committee negates his ability to make demands.

  7. Whether the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses regarding the entrapment are conflicting and doubtful.

  8. Whether the failure of the NBI to take photographs of the actual turnover of the money to the petitioner is fatal to the People's cause.

  9. Whether petitioner's claim that his hands were negative for fluorescent powder is supported by evidence.

  10. Whether petitioner's claim that he was set up by Engr. Sta. Maria Sr. and Engr. Resoso is plausible.

  11. Whether the guilt of the petitioner has been established beyond reasonable doubt.

  12. Whether the accused had a mischievous demand in exchange for certain favorable considerations.

RULING:

  1. The petitioner falls within the definition of a public officer under the Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. The duties outlined in the contract of services are considered official duties since they involve the intervention of a public officer as required by law. Therefore, the petitioner's argument that his intervention was not required by law is deemed erroneous.

  2. The prosecution has proven the guilt of the petitioner beyond reasonable doubt. The alleged improbabilities and inconsistencies in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses do not disprove the petitioner's guilt. The demand made by the petitioner, regardless of who it was directed towards, satisfies the element of the offense under the Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.

  3. The failure of the petitioner to arrange meetings with the contractor does not weaken the cause against him as it does not disprove his demand for money.

  4. The court rejects the argument that the percentage demanded by the petitioner is too high since there is no basis to determine the actual profit of the contractor. Moreover, the petitioner considers the percentage as proper compensation for his alleged contributions to the contractor.

  5. The petitioner's demand for a percentage is justified as it is a bargaining tactic to prevent further losses for the contractor. The deductive changes do not necessarily provide a motive for the petitioner to ask for a higher percentage.

  6. The petitioner's role as part of the technical committee does not negate his ability to make demands as his recommendations carry weight and he is responsible for the supervision and consultation of the project.

  7. The testimonies of the prosecution witnesses regarding the entrapment are not conflicting or doubtful as they pertain to different subjects - the amount given to the NBI for the entrapment and the amount dusted with fluorescent powder.

  8. No, the failure of the NBI to take photographs of the actual turnover of the money to the petitioner is not fatal to the People's cause. The transaction was witnessed by several people, and their testimonies are consistent, logical, and credible.

  9. No, petitioner's claim that his hands were negative for fluorescent powder is not supported by evidence. The testimony and report submitted by the forensic expert of the NBI, who conducted the test, found petitioner's right palmar hand positive for fluorescent powder.

  10. No, petitioner's claim that he was set up by Engr. Sta. Maria Sr. and Engr. Resoso is improbable and contrary to human experience. It is highly unlikely for the construction company to engage in a malicious prosecution of an innocent person due to a personal dispute.

  11. The guilt of the petitioner has been established beyond reasonable doubt. The Sandiganbayan's decision is affirmed.

PRINCIPLES:

  • The definition of a public officer under the Graft and Corrupt Practices Act includes individuals who perform duties requiring the intervention of a public officer under the law.

  • Proof beyond reasonable doubt requires moral certainty, not absolute certainty.

  • Improbabilities and inconsistencies in testimonies do not necessarily disprove the guilt of the accused.

  • Failure to arrange meetings does not weaken the cause against a petitioner if it does not disprove the demand for money.

  • The court may reject an argument when there is no basis to determine the actual profit of a contractor.

  • A demand for a percentage can be justified as a bargaining tactic to prevent further losses.

  • Role as part of a technical committee does not negate the ability to make demands when responsibilities include supervision and consultation.

  • Testimonies are not conflicting or doubtful when they pertain to different subjects.

  • Testimonies of witnesses are given weight and considered credible when they are consistent, logical, and supported by other evidence.

  • The failure to take photographs during an entrapment operation is not fatal as long as there are other witnesses and testimonies to support the transaction.

  • The findings of a forensic expert, supported by a written report, hold more weight than a self-serving statement of the accused.

  • Claims that an individual was set up for revenge must be supported by plausible evidence and cannot be contrary to human experience.

  • The guilt of the accused must be established beyond reasonable doubt.

  • It is unlikely for a complainant to jeopardize their business interests and risk being blacklisted in government projects to retaliate or take revenge on the accused.