HENRY GO V.
FIFTH DIVISION, SANDIGANBAYAN AND THE OFFICE OF THE BACKGROUND FACTS from the original case (April 13, 2007):
SPECIAL PROSECUTOR, OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN
(MR) April 16, 2009 | J. Ynares-Santiago
NOTE: The citation in the syllabus is for the MR filed by Go. In the original
decision, Gos petition for review of his Motion to Quash was initially dismissed by
the SC. However, due to the eventual acquittal of his co-accused, the SC
eventually granted his MR.
RA 3019, Section 3(g): Entering, on behalf of the Government, into any contract
or transaction manifestly and grossly disadvantageous to the same, whether or
not the public officer profited or will profit thereby.
RA 3019, SEC. 1. Statement of policy. - It is the policy of the Philippine
Government, in line with the principle that a public office is a public trust, to
repress certain acts of public officers and private persons alike which constitute
graft or corrupt practices or which may lead thereto.
FACTS
former DOTC Sec. Vicente Rivera was charged with violating Section
3(g) of RA 3019 in conspiracy with accused HENRY GO, Chairman and
President of Philippine International Air Terminals, Co., Inc. (PIATCO)
on March 18, 2008, Vicente C. Rivera, Jr. was acquitted and the case
against him dismissed.
ISSUE: WoN the case against Go should also be dismissed pursuant to Riveras
acquittal YES
RATIO
Elements of Section 3(g) of RA 3019:
1. Accused is a public officer
2. He entered into a contract or transaction on behalf of the
government
3. Such contract or transaction is grossly and manifestly
disadvantageous to the government
However, if there is an allegation of conspiracy, a private person may be
held liable together with the public officer
o This is because the policy behind RA 3019 is to repress certain
acts of public officers and private persons alike which may
constitute graft or corrupt practices or which may lead thereto
(see Sec. 1 of said law).
RULING: MR filed by the Office of the Special Prosecutor is DENIED. The
Sandiganbayan is DIRECTED to DISMISS the Criminal Case against petitioner
Henry Go
In 2003, the SC declared null and void the 1997 Concession Agreement
between the DOTC/MIAA and PIATCO
PIATCO was supposed to develop NAIA 3 under a build-operate-transfer
scheme (BOT). However, the SC found that Paircargo Consortium,
PIATCOs predecessor-in-interest, was not a qualified bidder as it failed
to meet the financial capability requirement under the BOT Law.
Moreover, the PIATCO contracts were declared null and void for being
contrary to public policy.
The losing bidder filed a complaint with the Ombudsman against persons
involved in the said project. Informations against Rivera, Go and others
were filed with the Sandiganbayan.
Go filed a Motion to Quash the Information on the ground, inter alia that
he is not a public officer. This was denied. Because his MR was also
denied, Go filed a petition for certiorari with the SC.
Petitioner Go claims that, the first element of the offense charged against
him is absent because he is not a public officer who is authorized by law
to bind the government through the act of "entering into a contract."
o He posits that had it been the intention of the lawmakers to
penalize private persons who supposedly "conspired" with
public officers in violation of Sections 3, 4, 5 and 6 of RA 3019,
it could have easily used the conjunctive "and," not "or,"
between the terms "public officer" and "private person" in
Section 9 thereof.
The Sandiganbayan argued that even as a private individual he is not
excluded from the coverage of Section 3(g) of RA 3019 because he is
not being accused singly but as someone who conspired with a public
officer in violating the said law.
o But Go responded that said rule on conspiracy applies only to
Sec.3(e) of said law.
SC DECISION:
o the fact that he is not a public officer does not necessarily take
him out of the ambit of Section 3(g) of RA 3019 because of the
letter and spirit of the law as stated in Sec.1.
o as explained by JBL Reyes in an earlier case, Section 3(g) of
RA 3019 partakes the nature of malum prohibitum; it is the
commission of that act as defined by law, not the character or
effect thereof, that determines whether or not the provision has
been violated.
o Sec. 9 of the law, in stating the penalties also includes both
private persons and public officers
o There were also a number of old cases that convicted private
persons for the same act allegedly committed by Go
o Gos reliance in an earlier case involving Imelda Marcos is
misplaced because Imeldas acquittal was not because she was
not a public officer but because the public officer with whom she
conspired with was also acquitted
o IN SUM, the SC dismissed the petition for certiorari filed by Go.