Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 102 views

    02 Preclaro V Sandiganbayan

    Uploaded by

    Naomi Quimpo
    The petitioner was found guilty by the Sandiganbayan of violating the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act for demanding P200,000 in connection with a construction project where he served as Project Manager. The petitioner argued he was not a public officer and the Sandiganbayan lacked jurisdiction. The Supreme Court disagreed, finding that as Project Manager, the petitioner fell under the non-career service category of public officers according to law. As Project Manager, the petitioner had authority and privilege to act on behalf of the government in evaluating contractors' work, approving payments and changes to the project. Therefore, the elements of the offense were satisfied and the Sandiganbayan properly exercised jurisdiction over the petitioner.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    02 Preclaro V Sandiganbayan

    Uploaded by

    Naomi Quimpo
    102 views1 page
    The petitioner was found guilty by the Sandiganbayan of violating the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act for demanding P200,000 in connection with a construction project where he served as Project Manager. The petitioner argued he was not a public officer and the Sandiganbayan lacked jurisdiction. The Supreme Court disagreed, finding that as Project Manager, the petitioner fell under the non-career service category of public officers according to law. As Project Manager, the petitioner had authority and privilege to act on behalf of the government in evaluating contractors' work, approving payments and changes to the project. Therefore, the elements of the offense were satisfied and the Sandiganbayan properly exercised jurisdiction over the petitioner.

    Original Description:

    Puboff

    Original Title

    02 Preclaro v Sandiganbayan

    Copyright

    © Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

    Available Formats

    DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The petitioner was found guilty by the Sandiganbayan of violating the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act for demanding P200,000 in connection with a construction project where he served as Project Manager. The petitioner argued he was not a public officer and the Sandiganbayan lacked jurisdiction. The Supreme Court disagreed, finding that as Project Manager, the petitioner fell under the non-career service category of public officers according to law. As Project Manager, the petitioner had authority and privilege to act on behalf of the government in evaluating contractors' work, approving payments and changes to the project. Therefore, the elements of the offense were satisfied and the Sandiganbayan properly exercised jurisdiction over the petitioner.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    102 views1 page

    02 Preclaro V Sandiganbayan

    Uploaded by

    Naomi Quimpo
    The petitioner was found guilty by the Sandiganbayan of violating the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act for demanding P200,000 in connection with a construction project where he served as Project Manager. The petitioner argued he was not a public officer and the Sandiganbayan lacked jurisdiction. The Supreme Court disagreed, finding that as Project Manager, the petitioner fell under the non-career service category of public officers according to law. As Project Manager, the petitioner had authority and privilege to act on behalf of the government in evaluating contractors' work, approving payments and changes to the project. Therefore, the elements of the offense were satisfied and the Sandiganbayan properly exercised jurisdiction over the petitioner.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 1

    PRECLARO v. SANDIGANBAYAN (1995) J. Kapunan FACTS: Petitioner was found guilty by the Sandiganbayan for a violation of Sec.

    3(b) of R.A. No. 3019 as amended, otherwise known as the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, for having requested or demanded for himself the sum of P200,000, in connection with the construction of a building, to which he was the Project Manager of. Position: Project Manager Office: Chemical Mineral Division of the Industrial Technology Development Institute (ITDI), a component of the DOST Function: To supervise the construction of the ITDI-CMD (JICA) Building at the DOST Compound in Bicutan Term: Oct. 1, 1989 til end of construction period, unless sooner terminated Salary: Monthly, drawn from counterpart funds duly financed by foreign-assisted projects and government funds duly released by the Department of Budget and Management ISSUE/HELD: WON the Sandiganbayan erred in taking cognizance of the case, instead of dismissing it for lack of jurisdiction, petitioner not being a public officer - NO Petitioner: Not a public officer, but a private individual hired by ITDI on contractual basis for a particular project and for a specified period as evidenced by the contract of services he entered into with the ITDI. - He was neither elected nor appointed to a public office. - He was not issued any appointment paper separate from the contract. - He was not required to use the bundy clock to record his hours of work - He did not take an oath of office. SC: 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 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. Non-career service in particular is characterized by

    (1) entrance on bases other than those of the usual test of merit and fitness utilized for the career service; and (2) tenure which is limited to a period specified by law, or which is coterminous with that of the appointing authority or subject to his pleasure, or which is limited to the duration of a particular project for which purpose employment was made . The Non-Career Service shall include: (1) Elective officials and their personal or confidential staff; (2) Secretaries and other officials of Cabinet rank who hold their positions at the pleasure of the President and their personal or confidential staff(s); (3) Chairman and members of commissions and boards with fixed terms of office and their personal or confidential staff; (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, which in no case shall exceed one year, and performs or accomplishes the specific work or job, under his own responsibility with a minimum of direction and supervision from the hiring agency; and (5) Emergency and seasonal personnel.

    Petitioner is a public officer, falling under the non-career service category (formerly termed the unclassified or exemption service) of the Civil Service. The fact that petitioner 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 in view of the above-mentioned provision of law clearly including petitioner within the definition of a public officer. Among petitioner's duties as project manager is to evaluate the contractor's accomplishment reports/billings hence, as correctly ruled by the Sandiganbayan he has the "privilege and authority to make a favorable recommendation and act favorably in behalf of the government," signing acceptance papers and approving deductives and additives are some examples. All of the elements of Sec. 3(b) of the Anti-Graft & Corrupt Practices Act are, therefore, present.

    You might also like