JAVIER vs.

SANDIGANBAYAN

FACTS:

Javier was the private sector representative in the National Book Development Board (NBDB), which was created by R.A. 8047, otherwise known
as the “Book Publishing Industry Development Act.” R.A. No. 8047 provided for the creation of the NBDB, which was placed under the
administration and supervision of the Office of the President. The NBDB is composed of eleven (11) members who are appointed by the
President, five (5) of whom come from the government, while the remaining six (6) are chosen from the nominees of organizations of private
book publishers, printers, writers, book industry related activities, students and the private education sector.

Petitioner was appointed to the Governing Board for a term of one 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 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 on October 8--12, 1997. Based on her itinerary of travel, she was paid
P139,199.00 as her travelling expenses. Unfortunately, petitioner was not able to attend the scheduled international book fair.

ISSUE:

Whether or not Javier is a public officer. (YES)

HELD:

YES, Javier is a public officer.

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.

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.
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. 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.

Article 203 of the Revised Penal Code defines a “public officer” as any person who, by direct provision of the law, 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.
PRECLARO v SB

Facts: Accused is a project manager/consultant of the Chemical Mineral Division, Industrial Technology Development Institute, Department of
Science and Technology, a component of the Industrial Development Institute which is an agency of the DOST.

He is to supervise the construction of the ITDI-CMD building, while the Jaime Sta. Maria Construction undertook the construction. The structure
is jointly funded by the Philippine and Japanese Governments.

While the said construction has not yet been completed, accused either directly requested and/or demanded for himself the sum of
P200,000.00, claimed as part of the expected profit of the contractor.

Petitioner was charged for violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act for committing said offense in relation to the performance of his
official duties.

Petitioner asserts in a petition for review that he is not a public officer because he was neither elected nor appointed to a public office, but
merely a private individual hired by the ITDI on contractual basis for a particular project and for a specified period. Hence the Sandiganbayan
erred in taking cognizance of the case.

Section 2 (b) of RA 3019 defines a public officer to “include 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…”

Issue: WON a private individual hired on a contractual basis by the government is a public officer.

Held: Yes. The word “includes” used in defining a public officer indicates that the definition is not restrictive. The terms “classified, unclassified
or exemption service” were the old categories of position 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 by the Administrative Code of 1987.

A private individual hired on a contractual basis as Project Manager for a government undertaking falls under the non-career service category of
the Civil Service and thus is a public officer as defined by Sec 2(b) of RA 3019.
Under Book V, Title I, Subtitle A, Chapter 2, Sec 6(2) of the Administrative Code of 1987, non-career service in particular is characterized by 1)
entrance 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.

Section 9(4) of the same provides that Non-Career Service It shall include Contractual personnel or those 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.
Laurel v. Desierto

Facts:

Petitioner Vice-President Salvador Laurel was appointed as the head of the National Centennial Commission, a body constituted for the
preparation of the National Centennial celebration in 1998. He was subsequently appointed as the Chairman of ExpoCorp., and was one of the
nine (9) incorporators. A controversy erupted on the alleged anomalies with the bidding contracts to some entities and the petitioner was
implicated. By virtue of an investigation conducted by the Office of the Ombudsman, the petitioner was indicted for alleged violation of the Anti-
Graft and Corrupt Practices Act (RA 3019). The petitioner filed a Motion to Dismiss questioning the jurisdiction of the Office of the Ombudsman,
which was denied. He further filed a motion for reconsideration which was also denied, hence this petition for certiorari.

The petitioner assails the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman and contended that he is not a public officer since ExpoCorp is a private corporation.

Issue: W/N the petitioner is a public officer

Yes, the Ombudsman has jurisdiction over the case of the petitioner since he is a public officer. The NCC is an office performing executive
functions since one of its mandate is to implement national policies. Moreover, the said office was established by virtue of an executive order. It
is clear that the NCC performs sovereign functions, hence it is a public office. Since petitioner is chair of the NCC, he is therefore a public officer.
The fact that the NCC was characterized by EO 128 as an 'ad-hoc body' make it less of a public office. Finally, the fact that the petitioner did not
receive any compensation during his tenure is of no consequence since such is merely an incidence and forms no part of the office.