G.R. Nos. 147026-27 September 11, 2009 CAROLINA R. JAVIER, Petitioner, vs.

. THE FIRST DIVISION OF THE SANDIGANBAYAN and the PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, DEL CASTILLO, J.: (R.A.) No. 8047,5 or otherwise known as the "Book Publishing Industry Development Act", was enacted into law., qualityproduced books for the domestic and export market. To achieve this purpose, the law provided for the creation of the National Book Development Board On February 26, 1996, petitioner was appointed to the Governing Board as a private sector representative for a term of one (1) year. During that time, she was also the President of the Book Suppliers Association of the Philippines (BSAP). She was on a hold-over capacity in the following year. On September 14, 1998, she was again appointed to the same position and for the same period of one (1) year Part of her functions as a member of the Governing Board is to attend book fairs to establish linkages with international book publishing bodies. On September 29, 1997, she was issued by the Office of the President a travel authority to attend the Madrid International Book Fair in Spain.She was paid P139,199.0010 as her travelling expenses. Unfortunately, petitioner was not able to attend the scheduled international book fair. On February 16, 1998, Resident Auditor Rosario T. Martin advised petitioner to immediately return/refund her cash advance considering that her trip was canceled.11 Petitioner, however, failed to do so . On September 23, 1999, Dr. Nellie R. Apolonio, then the Executive Director of the NBDB, filed with the Ombudsman a complaint against petitioner for malversation of public funds and properties. The Ombudsman found probable cause to indict petitioner for violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019,14 as amended, and recommended the filing of the corresponding information.15 In an Information dated February 18, 2000, petitioner was charged with violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 before the Sandiganbayan, to wit: Meanwhile, the Commission on Audit charged petitioner with Malversation of Public Funds, as defined and penalized under Article 217 of the Revised Penal Code, for not liquidating the cash advance The Ombudsman found probable cause to indict petitioner for the crime charged and recommended the filing of the corresponding information against her. Accused filed a motion to Quash, but the Sandigan Bayan denied said motion. Petitioner: Sandiganbayan has committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction for not quashing the two informations. She advanced the following arguments in support of her petition, to wit: first, she is not a public officer, and second, she was being charged under two (2) informations, which is in violation of her right against double jeopardy. Issue: 1. WON the accused is a public officer? Held: Yes. Ratio: The NBDB is the government agency mandated to develop and support the Philippine book publishing industry. It is a statutory government agency created by R.A. No. 8047, which was enacted into law to ensure the full development of the book publishing industry as well as for the creation of organization structures to implement the said policy. - A perusal of the powers and functions leads us to conclude that they partake of the nature of public functions. A public office is the right, authority and duty, created and conferred by law, by which, for a given period, either fixed by law or enduring at the pleasure of the creating power, an individual is invested with some portion of the sovereign functions of the government, to be exercised by him for the benefit of the public. The individual so invested is a public officer.32 Notwithstanding that petitioner came from the private sector to sit as a member of the NBDB, the law invested her with some portion of the sovereign functions of the government, so that the purpose of the government is achieved. In this case, the government aimed to enhance the book publishing industry as

it has a significant role in the national development. Hence, the fact that she was appointed from the public sector and not from the other branches or agencies of the government does not take her position outside the meaning of a public office. She was appointed to the Governing Board in order to see to it that the purposes for which the law was enacted are achieved. The Governing Board acts collectively and carries out its mandate as one body. The purpose of the law for appointing members from the private sector is to ensure that they are also properly represented in the implementation of government objectives to cultivate the book publishing industry. Moreover, the Court is not unmindful of the definition of a public officer pursuant to the Anti-Graft Law, which provides that a public officer includes elective and appointive officials and employees, permanent or temporary, whether in the classified or unclassified or exempt service receiving compensation, even nominal, from the government.33 Thus, pursuant to the Anti-Graft Law, one is a public officer if one has been elected or appointed to a public office. Petitioner was appointed by the President to the Governing Board of the NDBD. Though her term is only for a year that does not make her private person exercising a public function. The fact that she is not receiving a monthly salary is also of no moment. Section 7, R.A. No. 8047 provides that members of the Governing Board shall receive per diem and such allowances as may be authorized for every meeting actually attended and subject to pertinent laws, rules and regulations. Also, under the Anti-Graft Law, the nature of one's appointment, and whether the compensation one receives from the government is only nominal, is immaterial because the person so elected or appointed is still considered a public officer. On the other hand, the Revised Penal Code defines a public officer as any person who, by direct provision of the law, popular election, popular election or appointment by competent authority, shall take part in the performance of public functions in the Government of the Philippine Islands, or shall perform in said Government or in any of its branches public duties as an employee, agent, or subordinate official, of any rank or classes, shall be deemed to be a public officer. 34 Where, as in this case, petitioner performs public functions in pursuance of the objectives of R.A. No. 8047, verily, she is a public officer who takes part in the performance of public functions in the government whether as an employee, agent, subordinate official, of any rank or classes. In fact, during her tenure, petitioner took part in the drafting and promulgation of several rules and regulations implementing R.A. No. 8047. She was supposed to represent the country in the canceled book fair in Spain. In fine, We hold that petitioner is a public officer. 2. WON petitioner is within the jurisdiction of Sandiganbayan? Held. Yes. Ratio: The said five members of the Board do not receive any salary and as such their position are not classified and are not assigned any salary grade. For purposes however of determining the rank equivalence of said positions, notwithstanding that they do not have any salary grade assignment, the same may be equated to Board Member II, SG-28.36 Thus, based on the Amended Information in Criminal Case No. 25898, petitioner belongs to the employees classified as SG-28, included in the phrase "all other national and local officials classified as Grade 27' and higher under the Compensation and Position Classification Act of 1989."

G.R. No. 111091 August 21, 1995 ENGINEER CLARO J. PRECLARO vs. SANDIGANBAYAN and PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Chemical Mineral Division of t Industrial Technology Development Institute (ITDI), a component of the (DOST) employed Petitioner under a written contract of services as Project Manager to supervise the construction of the ITDI-CMD (JICA) Building at the DOST Compound in Bicutan, Taguig, o contract in effect October 1, 1989 up to the end of the construction period unless sooner terminated. o Petitioner paid a monthly salary drawn from counter-part funds financed by foreign-assisted projects and government funds released by the DBM to build the CMD Structure, DOST contracted the services of Jaime Sta. Maria Construction Company with Engr. Resoso, project engineer. Resoso was evaluating a Change Order for electricals in the building construction when petitioner approached him o petitioner made overtures that expenses in the Change Order will be deductive (charged to the contractor), instead of additive (charged to the owner). o intimated the can forget about the deductive provided he gets P200,000.00, a chunk of the contractor's profit which he estimated to be P460,000.00 NBI: entrapment WON is a public officer as defined by Sec. 2(b) of R.A. No. 3019 He is Pet: he was neither elected nor appointed to a public office. Rather, he is merely a private individual hired by the ITDI on contractual basis for a particular project and for a specified period as evidenced by the contract of services he entered into with ITDI. he was not issued any appointment paper separate from the contract. not required to use the bundy clock to record his hours of work and neither did he take an oath of office. SC: WRONG Petitioner miscontrues the definition of "public officer" in R.A. No. 3019 which, according to Sec. 2(b "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." "includes indicates that the definition is not restrictive. "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 CSC and by the Administrative Code of 1987. Non-career service 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 falls under the non-career service category (unclassified or exemption service) of the Civil Service and thus is a public officer fact that he is not required to record his working hours by m a bundy clock or did not take an oath of office became

unessential considerations in view of the provision of law clearly including petitioner within the definition of a public officer. averment that he could not be prosecuted under the Anti-Graft & Corrupt Practices Act because his intervention "was not required by law but in the performance of a contract of services entered into by him as a private individual contractor," is erroneous. petitioner falls within the definition of a public officer and as such, his duties delineated in contract of services are subsumed under "wherein the public officer in his official capacity has to intervene under the law." Petitioner's allegation is a mere splitting of hairs. Among petitioner's duties as project manager is to evaluate the contractor's accomplishment reports/billings hence, 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.

G.R. No. 166355 May 30, 2011 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, vs. LUIS J. MORALES, BRION, J.: The National Centennial Commission (NCC) and the Bases Conversion Development Authority (BCDA) organized the Philippine Centennial Expo 98 Corporation or Expocorp whose primary purpose was to operate,administer, manage and develop the Philippine Centennial International Exposition 1998. The PhilippineCentennial project was marred by numerous allegations of anomalies, among them, the lack of public biddings.Both the Senate Blue Ribbon Committee and the AHICC recommended to the Office of the Ombudsman that a more exhaustive investigation of the Philippine Centennial project be conducted. The investigation resulted in the filing of an Information by the Ombudsmans Fact-Finding and Investigation Bureau against respondent Luis J. Morales (Morales), the acting president of Expocorp at the time relevant to the case. In the proceedings before the Sandiganbayan, Morales moved for the dismissal of the case for lack of jurisdiction over his person and over the offense charged SandiganBayan: Dismissed the information against Morales. - Expocorp is a private corporation, the Sandiganbayan stated that it was not created by a special law nor did it have an original charter. The Sandiganbayan ruled that applying the provisions of the Revised Administrative Code of 1987, Expocorp is a private corporation because Global owns 55.16% of its stocks Petitioner: Expocorp was organized and created for the sole purpose of performing the executive functions of the National Centennial Commission and the sovereign functions of the government, and should be considered as a public office -Having established that Expocorp, by extension, performed part of the sovereign functions delegated to the NCC, it follows that respondent, as President of Expocorp, performed tasks that likewise fall within the contemplation of the governments sovereign functions Issue: WON Expocorp should be considered as a public office? Held: We do not agree with the People. Ratio: Expocorp is a private corporation as found by the Sandiganbayan. It was not created by a special law but was incorporated under the Corporation Code and was registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission.16 It is also not a government-owned or controlled corporation. Although BCDA, which owned 999,991 shares 17 of its shares, was one of Expocorps original incorporators, the Board of Directors of Expocorp allowed Global to buy 1,229,998 of its unused and unsubscribed shares two months after its incorporation. With the BCDA as a minority stockholder, Expocorp cannot be characterized as a government-owned or controlled corporation. In Dante V. Liban, et al. v. Richard J. Gordon,18 we pointedly said: A government-owned or controlled corporation must be owned by the government, and in the case of a stock corporation, at least a majority of its capital stock must be owned by the government. Since Expocorp is a private corporation, not a government-owned or controlled corporation, Morales, as Expocorps president who now stands charged for violating Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 in this 2

capacity, is beyond the Sandiganbayans jurisdiction.