Quibal vs.

Sandiganbayan

Facts:

On November 27, 1987, the municipality of Palapag, Northern Samar, represented by its OIC vice-mayor Teodoro C. Bello,
entered into a contract with the Floters Construction Company, represented by accused Eduardo C. Guevarra, for the
Construction of the municipal public market. The period for the completion of the project was one hundred (100) days. The
price was P652,562.60.

From February 16, 1988 to April 12, 1988, accused Mayor Quibal and Municipal Treasurer Deniega, issued four (4) PNB
checks in favor of the contractor in the total amount of P650,000.00. However, sometime in June 1988, after receipt of said
payments, the contractor abandoned the project.

On August 31, 1988, a COA Special Audit Team composed of Provincial Auditor Marissa Bayona and Engineers Bienvenido
Bayani and Robert Bajar inspected the progress of the construction of the Palapag municipal market. It discovered several
irregularities. It found out that only about 36.24% of the construction of the municipal market has been completed despite the
lapse of the contract period of 100 days. The actual cost of the finished work on the project was only P301,746.65. Unfinished
work on the municipal market, as evaluated, cost P348,235.35. It was also established that the contractor had already been
paid P650,000.00 despite the non-completion of the building. The vouchers accompanying said payments were not properly
filled-up and the required supporting documents were not attached. The disbursement vouchers submitted by municipal
treasurer to the Provincial Auditor were unsigned. Likewise, the payment to the contractor in the amount of P340,000.00 was
not accompanied by any Certificate of Acceptance issued by the COA. COA rules require such certificate of acceptance if the
disbursement involves more than P200, 000.00.

For his part, accused mayor Quibal explained that he paid the contractor more than his accomplished work to enable the latter
to immediately purchase construction materials which were then selling at a low price. He further maintained that the audit
team should have included the value of these construction materials (still unused at the time of audit) in its evaluation of the
project. He urged that these unused materials were worth approximately P348,235.35, which would justify his payments to
the contractor in the total amount of P650,000.00.

After trial on the merits, the Sandiganbayan (Second Division) promulgated, a Decision finding accused public officials guilty
beyond reasonable doubt as co-principals of the crime charged.

Petitioners insist that their guilt has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt for they did not act with manifest partiality,
evident bad faith or gross, inexcusable negligence nor did they cause any injury or damage to the municipal government for
the construction of the municipal market was eventually completed.

Issue:

Whether or not the Sandiganbayan did not err in resolving that the guilt of the petitioners has not been proven beyond
reasonable doubt because petitioners did not act with manifest partiality, evident bad faith and gross inexcusable neglignce.

Ruling:

The Sandiganbayan did not err in not resolving that the guilt of the petitioners has not been proven beyond reasonable doubt
because petitioners did not act with manifest partiality, evident bad faith and gross inexcusable negligence.

Petitioners' acts and omissions are, to say the least, grossly negligent. Gross negligence is the pursuit of a course of conduct
which would naturally and reasonably result in injury. It is an utter disregard of or conscious indifference to consequences. In
cases involving public officials, there is gross negligence when a breach of duty is flagrant and palpable.
Preclaro vs Sandiganbayan, 247 SCRA 454

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.