Case Digest (G.R. No. 111091)
Facts:
Engineer Claro J. Preclaro v. Sandiganbayan and People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 111091, August 21, 1995, the Supreme Court First Division, Kapunan, J., writing for the Court.
On 14 June 1990 petitioner Claro J. Preclaro, then employed under a written contract of services as Project Manager/Consultant of the Chemical Mineral Division, Industrial Technology Development Institute (ITDI), Department of Science and Technology (DOST), was charged before the Sandiganbayan with violation of Sec. 3(b) of R.A. No. 3019 (Anti‑Graft and Corrupt Practices Act) for allegedly demanding P200,000 as part of an expected P460,000 contractor profit in connection with construction of an ITDI building.
Petitioner pleaded not guilty at arraignment on 20 July 1990. The prosecution’s case centered on testimony by Engr. Alexander Resoso (project engineer for Jaime Sta. Maria Construction) and members of the Sta. Maria family, and on an NBI‑conducted entrapment operation: Sta. Maria Sr. and Resoso reported the demand to the NBI, furnished P50,000 (in P500 bills) for the operation, the bills were dusted with fluorescent powder and placed in two envelopes, and Resoso and Sta. Maria Jr. delivered the envelopes to a prearranged meeting at Wendy’s Restaurant on 8 June 1990 where petitioner received two envelopes and was immediately accosted by NBI agents. Forensic testing by the NBI found petitioner’s right palmar hand positive for fluorescent powder; his clothing tested inconclusive because the fabric itself fluoresced.
After trial, the Second Division of the Sandiganbayan, on 30 June 1993, convicted petitioner beyond reasonable doubt of violating Sec. 3(b), R.A. No. 3019, and sentenced him to an indeterminate penalty of six years and one month to ten years and one day, perpetual disqualification from public office, and to pay costs. Petitioner filed a petition for review to the Supreme Court, asserting (1) lack of jurisdiction because he was not a...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Was the Sandiganbayan correct in exercising jurisdiction over petitioner by treating him as a “public officer” under R.A. No. 3019?
- Was the evidence sufficient to establish petitioner’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt under Sec. 3(b) o...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)