G.R. No.

111091 August 21, 1995

ENGINEER CLARO J. PRECLARO, petitioner,

vs.
SANDIGANBAYAN and PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents.

KAPUNAN, J.:

On 14 June 1990, petitioner was charged before the Sandiganbayan with a violation of Sec. 3(b) of
R.A. No. 3019 as amended, otherwise known as the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. The
information against him read as follows:

That on or about June 8, 1990, or sometime prior thereto, in Quezon City, Philippines, and
within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, a public officer,
being then the Project Manager/ Consultant of the Chemical Mineral Division, Industrial
Technology Development Institute, Department of Science and Technology, a component of
the Industrial Development Institute (ITDI for brevity) which is an agency of the Department
of Science and Technology (DOST for brevity), wherein the Jaime Sta. Maria Construction
undertook the construction of the building in Bicutan, Taguig, Metro Manila, with a total cost
of SEVENTEEN MILLION SIX HUNDRED NINETY FIVE THOUSAND PESOS
(P17,695,000.00) jointly funded by the Philippine and Japanese Governments, and while the
said construction has not yet been finally completed, accused either directly requested
and/or demanded for himself or for another, the sum of TWO HUNDRED THOUSAND
PESOS (P200,000.00), claimed as part of the expected profit of FOUR HUNDRED SIXTY
THOUSAND PESOS (P460,000.00) in connection with the construction of that government
building wherein the accused had to intervene under the law in his capacity as Project
Manager/Consultant of said construction — said offense having been committed in relation
to the performance of his official duties.

CONTRARY TO LAW.1

On 20 July 1990, during arraignment, petitioner pleaded "not guilty" to the charges against him.

On 30 June 1993, after trial on the merits, the Second Division of the Sandiganbayan rendered
judgment finding petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt. The dispositive portion reads as follows:

WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered finding accused Claro Preclaro y Jambalos

GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the violation of Section 3, paragraph (b) of Republic Act
No. 3019, as amended, otherwise known as the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, and he
is hereby sentenced to suffer an indeterminate penalty ranging from SIX (6) YEARS and
ONE (1) MONTH, as the minimum, to TEN (10) YEARS and ONE (1) DAY, as the maximum,
perpetual disqualification from public office and to pay the costs of this action.

SO ORDERED.2

The antecedent facts are largely undisputed.

On 1 October 1989, the Chemical Mineral Division of the Industrial Technology Development
Institute (ITDI), a component of the Department of Science and Technology (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, Metro Manila.3

The contract was to remain in effect from October 1, 1989 up to the end of the construction period
unless sooner terminated.4 Petitioner was to be paid a monthly salary drawn from counter-part funds
duly financed by foreign-assisted projects and government funds duly released by the Department of
Budget and Management.5

In November 1989, to build the aforementioned CMD Structure, DOST contracted the services of the
Jaime Sta. Maria Construction Company with Engr. Alexander Resoso, as the company's project
engineer. 6

How petitioner committed a violation of the Anti-Graft & Corrupt Practices Act is narrated in the
Comment of the Solicitor General and amply supported by the records. The material portions are
hereunder reproduced:

xxx xxx xxx

3. In the month of May, 1990, Alexander Resoso, Project Engineer of the Sta. Maria
Construction Company, was in the process of evaluating a Change Order for some
electricals in the building construction when petitioner approached him at the project site (p.
11, 25, Ibid.).

4. Unexpectedly, petitioner made some overtures that expenses in the Change Order will be
deductive (meaning, charged to the contractor by deducting from the contract price), instead
of additive (meaning, charged to the owner). Petitioner intimated that he can forget about the
deductive provided he gets P200,000.00, a chunk of the contractor's profit which he roughly
estimated to be around P460,000.00 (pp. 12-13, 22, Ibid.).

5. Having conveyed the proposal to Jaime Sta. Maria, Sr., the owner of Sta. Maria
Construction Company, Resoso thereafter asked petitioner if he wanted a rendezvous for
him to receive the money. Petitioner chose Wendy's Restaurant, corner E. Delos Santos
Avenue and Camias Street, on June 6, 1990 at around 8:00 o'clock in the evening (p.
14, Ibid.).

6. However, Sta. Maria, Sr. asked for two (2) more days or until the 8th of June, perceiving
financial constraints (Ibid.).

7. Petitioner relented, saying "O.K. lang with me because we are not in a hurry." (p. 15, Ibid.)
Petitioner was thereafter asked to bring along the result of the punch list (meaning, the list of
defective or correctible works to be done by the contractor) (p. 15, Ibid.; p. 10, TSN, 18 Oct.
1991).

8. On 7 June 1990, Sta. Maria, Sr. and Resoso proceeded to the National Bureau of
Investigation (NBI) to report the incident (p. 15, 35, Ibid.).

9. The NBI suggested an entrapment plan to which Sta. Maria, Sr. signified his conformity (p.
16, TSN, 12 Oct. 1990). Accordingly, Sta. Maria, Sr. was requested to produce the amount of
P50,000.00 in P500.00 denomination to represent the grease money (p. 37, TSN, 6 Sept.
1990).
10. The next day, or on 8 June 1990, Resoso delivered the money to the NBI. Thereafter, the
money was dusted with flourescent powder and placed inside an attache case (pp. 16-
17, Ibid.). Resoso got the attache case and was instructed not to open it. Similarly, he was
advised to proceed at the Wendy's Restaurant earlier than the designated time where a
group of NBI men awaited him and his companion, Sta. Maria, Jr. (pp. 17-18, Ibid.).

11. Hence, from the NBI, Resoso passed by the Jade Valley Restaurant in Timog, Quezon
City, to fetch Sta. Maria, Jr. (Ibid.).

12. At around 7:35 p.m., Resoso and Sta. Maria, Jr. arrived at the Wendy's Restaurant. They
were led by the NBI men to a table previously reserved by them which was similarly adjacent
to a table occupied by them (pp. 18-19, Ibid.).

13. Twenty minutes later, petitioner arrived. Supposedly, the following conversation took
place, to wit:

JUSTICE BALAJADIA:

q. When Dave Preclaro arrived, what did he do?

a. We asked him his order and we talked about the punch list.

q. What was his comment about the punch list?

a. He told us that it is harder to produce small items than big

ones.

q. How long did you converse with Engr. Claro Preclaro?

a. I think thirty minutes or so.

q. Was Preclaro alone when he came?

a. Yes, Your Honor.

xxx xxx xxx

PROS. CAOILI:

q. When you talk[ed] about his punch list, did you talk about
anything else?

a. Engineer Sta. Maria, Jr., they were conversing with Dave

Preclaro and he told [him], "O, paano na."

JUSTICE ESCAREAL:

q. Who said "Paano na?"

 a. Engineer Sta. Maria, [Jr.]. And then Preclaro told [him],
"Paano, How will the money be arranged and can I bring it?"
he said.

And then Jimmy Sta. Maria, Jr. told him it was arranged on
two bundles on two envelopes.

And then Dave Preclaro told, "Puede" and he asked Jimmy

Sta. Maria, Jr. if there is express teller and could he deposit
during night time but Engineer Sta. Maria, Jr. told him, "I do
not have any knowledge or I do not have any express teller
you can deposit. I only know credit card."

PROS. CAOILI:

q. When Engr. Sta. Maria intervened and interviewed him that

way, was there anything that happened?

a. Jimmy Sta. Maria, Jr. handed two envelopes to Preclaro.

q. Did Claro Preclaro receive these two envelopes from

Engineer Sta. Maria?

a. Yes, sir. (pp. 19-21, Ibid., See also pp. 13-14, TSN, 29 Oct.
1990.)

14. From the moment petitioner received the two envelopes with his right hand, thereafter
placing them under his left armpit, he was accosted by the NBI men (p. 22, TSN, 12 Oct.
1990).

15. A camera flashed to record the event. Petitioner instinctively docked to avoid the taking
of pictures. In such manner, the two envelopes fell (p. 23, Ibid.).

16. The NBI men directed petitioner to pick up the two envelopes. Petitioner refused. Hence,
one of the NBI men picked up the envelopes and placed them inside a big brown envelope
(p. 27, Ibid.)

17. Petitioner was thenceforth brought to the NBI for examination (p. 28; Ibid.).

18. At the NBI Forensic Chemistry Section, petitioner's right palmar hand was tested positive
of flourescent powder. The same flourescent powder, however, cannot be detected in
petitioner's T-shirt and pants (p. 5, TSN, 29 Oct. 1990).7

xxx xxx xxx

Thus, as brought out at the outset, an information was filed against petitioner which, after due
hearing, resulted in his conviction by the Sandiganbayan. Not satisfied with the decision, petitioner
instituted the present petition for review, ascribing to the Sandiganbayan the following errors:
 1. THE SANDIGANBAYAN ERRED IN TAKING COGNIZANCE OF THE CASE, INSTEAD
OF DISMISSING IT FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION, THE [PETITIONER] NOT BEING A
PUBLIC OFFICER; and

2. THE SANDIGANBAYAN ERRED IN NOT RULING THAT NOT ALL THE ELEMENTS OF
THE OFFENSE CHARGED HAVE BEEN ESTABLISHED BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT
AND/OR THAT THE GUILT OF THE [PETITIONER] HAS NOT BEEN ESTABLISHED
BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.

We find the petition unmeritorious.

On the first issue, petitioner asserts that he is not a public officer as defined by Sec. 2(b) of the Anti-
Graft & Corrupt Practices Act (R.A. No. 3019 as amended), because he was neither elected nor
appointed to a public office. Rather, petitioner maintains that he is merely a private individual hired
by the ITDI on contractual basis for a particular project and for a specified period8 as evidenced by
the contract of services9 he entered into with the ITDI. Petitioner, to further support his "theory,"
alleged that he was not issued any appointment paper separate from the abovementioned contract.
He was not required to use the bundy clock to record his hours of work and neither did he take an
oath of office. 10

We are not convinced by petitioner's arguments.

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 word "includes" used in defining a public officer in Sec. 2(b) indicates that the definition is not
restrictive. 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 11 by PD 807 providing for the organization of the Civil Service Commission 12 and by the
Administrative Code of 1987. 13

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. (Emphasis ours.) 14

From the foregoing classification, it is quite evident that petitioner falls under the non-career service
category (formerly termed the unclassified or exemption service) of the Civil Service and thus is a
public officer as defined by Sec. 2(b) of the Anti-Graft & Corrupt Practices Act (R.A. No. 3019).

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.

Similarly, petitioner's 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," 15 is erroneous. As discussed
above, petitioner falls within the definition of a public officer and as such, his duties delineated in
Annex "B" of the contract of services 16 are subsumed under the phrase "wherein the public officer in
his official capacity has to intervene under the law." 17 Petitioner's allegation, to borrow a cliche, is
nothing but a mere splitting of hairs.

Among petitioner's duties as project manager is to evaluate the contractor's accomplishment

reports/billings 18hence, 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. 19 All of the
elements of Sec. 3(b) of the Anti-Graft & Corrupt Practices Act are, therefore, present.

Anent the second issue, we likewise find Petitioner's allegations completely bereft of merit.

Petitioner insists that the prosecution has failed to establish his guilt beyond reasonable doubt and
that the charges against him should be rejected for being improbable, unbelievable and contrary to
human nature.

We disagree.

Proof beyond reasonable doubt does not mean that which produces absolute certainty. Only moral
certainty is required or "that degree of proof which produces conviction in an unprejudiced
mind." 20 We have extensively reviewed the records of this case and we find no reason to overturn
the findings of the Sandiganbayan.

Petitioner enumerates the alleged improbabilities and inconsistencies in the testimonies of the
prosecution witnesses. We shall examine the testimonies referred to with meticulousness.

Petitioner asserts that it was improbable for him to have demanded P200,000.00 from Engr. Resoso,
when he could have just talked directly to the contractor himself. It is quite irrelevant from whom
petitioner demanded his percentage share of P200,000.00 whether from the contractor's project
engineer, Engr. Alexander Resoso or directly from the contractor himself Engr. Jaime Sta. Maria Sr.
That petitioner made such a demand is all that is required by Sec. 3(b) of R.A. No. 3019 and this
element has been sufficiently established by the testimony of Engr. Resoso, thus:

xxx xxx xxx

Q You said when you were computing your Change Order Mr. Preclaro or
Dave Preclaro whom you identified approached you, what did you talk about?

A He mentioned to me that we are deductive in our Change Order three and

four so after our conversation I told this conversation to my boss that we are
deductible in the Change Order three and four and then my boss told me to
ask why it is deductive.

Q Did you ask the accused here, Dave Preclaro why it is considered
deductive?

A Yes, sir.

Q What was his answer if any?

A I asked him that my boss is asking me to ask you how come it became
deductive when my computation is additive and he told me that I have done
so much for your company already and then he picked up cement bag paper
bag and computed our alleged profit amounting to One Hundred Sixty
Thousand Pesos and then he told me that he used to use some percentage
in projects maximum and minimum and in our case he would use a minimum
percentage and multiply to 60 and . . .

JUSTICE ESCAREAL:

Q What is 460?

A P460,000.00 and he said take of the butal and get two Hundred Thousand
Pesos.

JUSTICE BALAJADIA:

What is the translation now?

WITNESS:

A And he said disregard the excess and I will just get the P200,000.00.
(Emphasis ours.)

PROS. CAOILI:

Q What does he mean by that if you know?

A I do not know sir.

He just said, I will get the P200,000.00 and tell it to your boss. (Emphasis
ours.)

JUSTICE BALAJADIA:

Q What is P200,000.00?

A It is Two Hundred Thousand Pesos.

PROS. CAOILI:

Q What did you answer him when he told you that?

A He told me to forget the deductive and electrical and after that I told my
boss what he told me.

Q Who is your boss?

A Santa Maria Sr.

Q What was the reaction of your boss when you relayed the message to Mr.
Preclaro?

A The next day he told me to ask Dave where and when to pick up the
money so the next day I asked Dave "Where do you intend to get the money,
the Boss wanted to know."

Q What was the answer of Dave?

A And he told me, Wendy's Restaurant at 3:00 o'clock.

Q When?

A June 6 Wednesday.

Q When he told you that did you comply with June 6 appointment?

A I told my boss what he told me again that the meeting will take place at
Wendy's Restaurant corner Edsa and Camias Street at around 8:00 o'clock
p.m. June 6, Wednesday.

Q What did your boss tell you?

A The next day he told me to ask Dave.

Q What did your boss tell you?

A My boss told me to ask Dave to postpone the meeting on June 6 to be

postponed on June 8 at the same place and same time because my boss is
having financial problem.
 Q Did you relay the postponement to Dave Preclaro?

A Yes sir. I told what my boss told me.

Q What was his reaction?

A Dave told me "O.K. lang with me" because we are not in a hurry. Any way
we are the ones to sign the acceptance papers and my boss instructed me
that on Friday to ask Dave to bring along the result of the punch list and if
possible also to bring along the acceptance papers to be signed by Dave,
Lydia Mejia and Dr. Lirag the director.

Q What happened next after meeting with Preclaro to relay the

postponement if any?

A Nothing happened. The next day, Thursday the boss instructed me to go

with him to the NBI to give a statement.

Q Did you go to the NBI and report to the incident to the NBI?

A Yes sir.

Q Did you give a statement before any of the agents of the of the NBI?

A Yes sir. 21

xxx xxx xxx

Likewise, petitioner's alleged refusal to see Mr. Jaime Sta. Maria Sr. when the latter tried to arrange
meetings with him regarding his demand 22 does not weaken the cause against petitioner. It does not
at all prove that petitioner did not ask for money. Conceivably petitioner did not muster enough
courage to ask money directly from the contractor himself. Getting the amount through the project
engineer would be safer because if Mr. Sta. Maria, Sr. had refused to give money, petitioner could
always deny having made the demand.

Petitioner contends that the percentage demanded in the amount of P200,000.00 is too high
considering that the estimated profit of the contractor from the CMD project is only P460,000.00. In
petitioner's words, this would "scare the goose that lays the golden egg." 23 We reject this argument.
The aforementioned contractor's profit is petitioner's own computation as testified to by Engr.
Resoso:

xxx xxx xxx

A I asked him that my boss is asking me to ask you how come it became
deductive when my computation is additive and he told me that I have done
so much for your company already and then he picked up cement bag paper
bag and computed our alleged profit amounting to One Hundred Sixty
Thousand Pesos and then he told me that he used to use some percentage
in projects maximum and minimum and in our case he would use a minimum
percentage and multiply to 460 and . . . (Emphasis ours.)
 JUSTICE ESCAREAL:

Q What is 460?

A P460,000.00 and it ended to P215 thousand or P20,000.00 and he said

take of the butal and get the Two Hundred Thousand Pesos. (Emphasis
ours.)

JUSTICE BALAJADIA:

What is the translation now?

WITNESS:

A And he said disregard the excess and I will just get the P200,000.00.

PROS. CAOILI:

Q What does he mean by that if you know?

A I do not know sir.

He just said, I will get the P200,000.00 and tell it to your boss. 24

xxx xxx xxx

The records, however, do not show the true and actual amount that the Sta. Maria Construction will
earn as profit. There is, therefore, no basis for petitioner's contention as the actual profit may be
lower or higher than his estimation.

Besides, as related by Engr. Resoso, petitioner considers the P200,000.00 percentage proper
compensation since he has allegedly done so much for the Sta. Maria construction company. 25

Petitioner also argues that:

According to STA. MARIA, SR., they were deductive by P280,000.00 (Id., pp. 34-35).

If STA. MARIA CONSTRUCTION was deductive in the amount of P280,000.00, why would
the petitioner still demand P200,000.00 which would increase the contractor's loss to
P480,000.00!

It might have been different if the changes were additive where STA. MARIA
CONSTRUCTION would have earned more, thereby providing motive for the petitioner to
ask for a percentage! 26

But this is precisely what petitioner was bargaining for — P200,000.00 in exchange for forgetting
about the deductive 27 and thus prevent the Sta. Maria Construction from incurring losses.

Petitioner's contention that it was impossible for him to make any demands because the final
decision regarding accomplishments and billing lies with the DOST technical committee is
unacceptable. Petitioner is part of the abovementioned technical committee as the ITDI
representative consultant. This is part of his duties under the contract of services in connection with
which he was employed by the ITDI. Even, assuming arguendo that petitioner does not make the
final decision, as supervisor/consultant, his recommendations will necessarily carry much weight.
Engr. Resoso testified thus:

PROS. CAOILI:

Q As a Project Engineer to whom do you present your billing papers

accomplishment report or purchase order?

A The billing paper was being taken cared of by the, of our office. I personally
do my job as supervision in the construction.

Q Do you have any counterpart to supervise the project from the government
side?

A Yes, we have.

Yes, the DOST have a technical Committee Infra-Structure Committee and

also the ITDI as its own representative.

Q Who composed the Technical Committee of the DOST?

A A certain Engineer Velasco, Engineer Sande Banez and Engineer Mejia.

Q How about the ITDI?

A The ITDI representative composed of Dave Preclaro.

Q Who is this Dave Preclaro?

A He is the consultant of ITDI. (Emphasis ours.)

xxx xxx xxx

ATTY. CAOILI:

Q As Project Engineer do you consult to any body regarding your job?

A First if there is any problem in the site I consult my boss.

PROS. CAOILI:

Q How about with the other consultants representing the ITDI and DOST?

A In the construction site we have meeting every Monday to discuss any

problem.

Q With whom do you discuss this problem?

 A The Infra-structure Committee of DOST and the Infra-structure Committee
of ITDI, the architect and the contractor. We had weekly meetings.

Q What matters if any do you consult with Mr. Claro Preclaro?

ATTY. JIMENEZ:

No basis.

JUSTICE ESCAREAL:

They met on problems on Mondays.

ATTY. JIMENEZ:

But there is no mention of Preclaro specifically.

JUSTICE ESCAREAL:

With the representative of DOST and Preclaro

ATTY. JIMENEZ:

Does that also mean that Preclaro is also among the representatives he is
going to consult with?

Well any way. . .

JUSTICE ESCAREAL:

Witness may answer the question.

Read back the question.

COURT STENOGRAPHER:

Reading back the question as ordered by the Court.

WITNESS:

A Every Monday meeting we tackle with accomplishment report the billing

papers. 28 (Emphasis ours.)

xxx xxx xxx

Petitioner also claims that the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses regarding the entrapment
itself are conflicting, doubtful or improbable:

(aaa) according to RESOSO, only FOUR (4) P500 bills were dusted with flourescent powder
and used in the alleged entrapment.
 Contradicting RESOSO, STA. MARIA, SR. said that he gave fifty thousand (P50,000.00)
pesos in P500 denomination to the NBI. 29

There is no such inconsistency. Said witnesses were testifying on two different subjects. Engr. Sta.
Maria, Sr.'s testimony touched on the amount he gave the NBI for use in the entrapment while Engr.
Resoso's declaration referred only to the number of bills dusted with flourescent powder.

Petitioner, likewise, misappreciated the following testimony of Resoso:

PROS. CAOILI:

Q What did he do with the two envelopes upon receiving the same?

A Then he asked Jaime Sta. Maria, Jr. if there is bank teller express, if he
could deposit the money but Mr. Sta. Maria said, "I do not have, I only have
credit cards." 30

Petitioner intended to deposit the money in his own account not that of Mr. Sta. Maria, Jr. He was
merely inquiring from the latter if there was an express teller nearby where he could make the
deposit. Mr. Sta. Maria Jr. himself testified as follows:

A He asked me if there was express teller. I told him I do not know then he
asked me whether it is possible to deposit at the Express Teller at that time. I
told him I don't know because I have no express teller card and he asked me
how am I going to arrange, how was it arranged if I will bring it, can I bring it.
Then I told him that it was placed in two envelopes consisting of 500 Peso
bills and then he said "Okay na yan." 31

The failure of the NBI to take photographs of the actual turn-over of the money to petitioner is not
fatal to the People's cause. The transaction was witnessed by several people, among whom were
Engr. Resoso, Mr. Sta. Maria Jr. and the NBI agents whose testimonies on the circumstances
before, during and after the turn-over are consistent, logical and credible.

According to NBI Agent Francisco Balanban Sr., they purposely took no photographs of the actual
turn-over so as not to alert and scare off the petitioner. During cross-examination Agent Balanban Jr.
stated:

xxx xxx xxx

Q Now, of course, this entrapment operation, you made certain preparation

to make sure that you would be able to gather evidence in support of the
entrapment?

A Yes sir.

Q As a matter of fact you even brought photographer for the purpose?

A That is right sir.

Q And that photographer was precisely brought along to record the

entrapment?
 A Yes sir.

Q From the beginning to the end, that was the purpose?

A At the time of the arrest sir.

ATTY. JIMENEZ:

From the time of the handing over of the envelopes until the entrapment
would have been terminated?

A No sir we plan to take the photograph only during the arrest because if we
take photographs he would be alerted during the handing of the envelopes.
(Emphasis ours.)

Q So you did not intend to take photographs of the act of handing of the
envelopes to the suspect?

A We intended but during that time we cannot take photographs at the time
of the handling because the flash will alert the suspect. (Emphasis ours.)

JUSTICE ESCAREAL:

Why did you not position the photographer to a far distance place with
camera with telescopic lens?

A We did not Your Honor.

ATTY. JIMENEZ:

So was it your intention to take photographs only at the time that he is

already being arrested?

A Yes sir. 32

xxx xxx xxx

Petitioner insists that when his hands were placed under ultra-violet light, both were found negative
for flourescent powder. This is petitioner's own conclusion which is not supported by evidence. Such
self-serving statement will not prevail over the clear and competent testimony and the
report 33 submitted by the forensic expert of the NBI Ms. Demelen R. dela Cruz, who was the one
who conducted the test and found petitioner's right palmar hand positive for flourescent powder, the
same hand he used, according to witnesses Resoso and Sta. Maria Jr., to get the money from the
latter.

xxx xxx xxx

Q Mrs. dela Cruz since when have you been a Forensic Chemist at NBI?

A Since 1981 sir.

Q JUSTICE ESCAREAL:

Q By the way, is the defense willing to admit that the witness is a competent
as . . . .

ATTY. JIMENEZ:

Admitted Your Honor.

PROS. CAOILI:

Madam Witness did you conduct a forensic examination in the person of one
Dave Preclaro y Jambalos?

A Yes sir.

Q If that person whom you examined is here in court would you be able to
recognize him?

ATTY. JIMENEZ:

We admit that the accused is the one examined by the witness.

ATTY. CAOILI:

Did you prepare the result of the examination in writing?

A Yes sir.

PROS. CAOILI:

Showing to you Physic Examination No. 90-961 which for purposes of

identification has already been marked as Exh. H what relation has this have
with the report that you mentioned a while ago?

A This is the same report that I prepared sir.

Q How did you conduct such flourescent examination?

A The left and right hands of the accused were placed under the ultra violet
lamp sir.

Q What was the result?

A It gave a . . . under the ultra violent lamp the palmer hands of the suspect
gave positive result for the presence of flourescent powder.

Q What palmar hands?

A Right hand sir.

 Q What other examination did you conduct?

A And also the clothing, consisting of the t-shirts and the pants were
examined. Under the ultra violet lamp the presence of the flourescent powder
of the t-shirts and pants cannot be seen or distinguished because the fibers
or the material of the cloth under the ultra violet lamp was flouresce.

Q Please tell the Court why the t-shirts and pants under the ultra violent lamp
was flouresce?

A The materials or the fibers of the clothings it could have been dyed with
flourescent dyes sir. 34

xxx xxx xxx

What we find improbable and contrary to human experience is petitioner's claim that he was set up
by Engr. Sta. Maria Sr. and Engr. Resoso for no other purpose but revenge on account, for
petitioner's failure to recommend the Sta. Maria Construction to perform the extra electrical works. 35

The Sandiganbayan has aptly ruled on this matter, thus:

For another, the claim of accused that there was ill-will on the part of the construction
company is hardly plausible. It is highly improbable for the company to embark on a
malicious prosecution of an innocent person for the simple reason that such person had
recommended the services of another construction firm. And it is extremely impossible for
such company to enlist the cooperation and employ the services of the government's chief
investigative agency for such an anomalous undertaking. It is more in accord with reason
and logic to presuppose that there was some sort of a mischievous demand made by the
accused in exchange for certain favorable considerations, such as, favorable
recommendation on the completeness of the project, hassle-free release of funds, erasure of
deductives, etc. Indeed, the rationale for the occurrence of the meeting and the demand for
money is infinite and boundless. 36

As correctly pointed out by the Solicitor General, Engr. Sta. Maria Sr., who was then engaged in the
construction of another DOST building, would not risk his business or livelihood just to exact revenge
which is neither profitable nor logical. As we aptly stated in Maleg v. Sandiganbayan: 37

It is hard to believe that the complainant who is a contractor would jeopardize and prejudice
his business interests and risk being blacklisted in government infrastructure projects,
knowing that with the institution of the case, he may find it no longer advisable nor profitable
to continue in his construction ventures. It is hardly probable that the complainant would
weave out of the blue a serious accusation just to retaliate and take revenge on the accused.

From the foregoing, the conclusion is inescapable that on the basis of the testimonial and
documentary evidence presented during the trial, the guilt of petitioner has been established beyond
reasonable doubt.

WHEREFORE, the appealed decision of the Sandiganbayan is hereby AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED.
Padilla, Davide, Jr., Bellosillo and Hermosisima, Jr., JJ., concur.

Footnotes

1 Rollo, p. 31.

2 Id., at 65.

3 Respondents' Comment, Rollo, p. 78; Petition, Rollo, p. 13.

4 Petition, Rollo, p. 13.

5 Respondents' Comment, Rollo, p. 79.

6 Sandiganbayan Decision dated 30 June 1993; Rollo, p. 32.

7 Respondent's Comment, Rollo, pp. 79-84.

8 Petition, Rollo, p. 12.

9 Id., at 12-13.

10 Id., at 11-12.

11 de Leon, Hector S. & de Leon, Hector M. Jr., Law on Public Officers & Election Law (1990
ed.), pp. 64-66.

12 Promulgated on 6 October 1975.

13 Book V, Title I, Subtitle A, Chapter 2, Sec. 6(2).

14 Id., sec. 9.

15 Rollo, p. 15.

16 JOB DESCRIPTION (PROJECT MANAGER)

Check contractor's daily activities to
conform with schedule;
Check quality of construction;
Evaluate contractor's accomplishments
reports/billings;
Advise on time saving construction method;
Check adequacy of material supply for
scheduled construction scope of work;
Advise on adequacy of equipment and manpower.

17 Sec. 3(b), RA No. 3019, otherwise known as the Anti-Graft & Corrupt Practices Act.
18 See Note 15.

19 Rollo, p. 301.

20 Sec. 2, Rule 133 of the Revised Rules on Evidence.

21 TSN, 6 September 1990, pp. 12-13.

22 Id., Id. at 41-42.

23 Rollo, p. 17.

24 TSN, 6 September 1990, pp. 12-13.

25 Id. at 12.

26 Rollo, p. 18.

27 TSN, 6 September 1990, p. 13.

28 Id. at 8-11.

29 Rollo, p. 20.

30 TSN, 6 September 1990, p. 21.

31 TSN, 29 October 1990, p. 13.

32 TSN, 12 October 1990, pp. 29-30.

33 Original Records, Exhibits H to H-4.

34 TSN, 29 October 1990, pp. 4-5.

35 Rollo, p. 25.

36 Id. at 296-297.

37 160 SCRA 623 (1988).