CRIM REV Article 212: Corruption of Public Officials

Case title: Henry Go v. Santiganbayan G.R. No. 172602

(Fifth Division)
Date: Apr. 13, 2007
DOCTRINES:

 The Declared Policy of RA 3019 is to repress certain acts of public officer and private
individuals
 (DISSENTING: Ynares-Santiago) A private individual and public officer committing an act in
conspiracy with each other may be held liable for different crimes.

FACTS:
CHARGE:
Violation of RA 3019: Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act Sec. 3(g)

FACTS:
This case arose out of the nullification of the Concession and Development contracts between the
Government thru the MIAA and the DOTC with PAIRCARGO CONSORTIUM (which was
succeeded by PIATCO (Philippine International Air Terminals Co.)) for the reason that PIATCO’s
predecessor was not qualified for it did not meet the financial capability requirement under the Build
Operate and Transfer Law.

Consequently, the Corporate Secretary Cacilia Pesayco of Asia’s Emerging Dragon Corporation
(which was the rival of PIATCO’s predecessor) filed a complaint against Sec. Rivera of the DOTC
and Henry Go as President of PIATCO, before the Office of the Ombudsman for violation of Sec.
3(g) of RA3019- entering into contracts grossly disadvantageous to the government.

Go questions via a Motion to Quash the information against him arguing lack of probable cause, but
more importantly that he cannot be held liable under the said provision by reason that he was not a
public official.

SANDIGANBAYAN DECISION:
Initially passed a Resolution denying the Motion to Quash, however overturned it upon
reconsideration on the premise that the ground relied upon was that the allegations do not
constitute an offense. It did, however, deny the Motion ruling that the determination of the existence
of Probable Cause is vested with the Prosecutor or the Ombudsman, and not with the court, and
that the other matters are matters of defense which must be proven or disproven during trial.

ARGUMENT:
That he cannot be charged for violation of Sec. 3(g) given that he is a private individual.

ISSUE/S:
ISSUE:
-Whether Go may be charged with violation of Sec. 3
HELD:
YES. In his arguments, Go relies heavily upon the case of Marcos v. Sandiganbayan
wherein the former First Lady Imelda Marcos was charged with violating the same provision
of RA 3019 for entering into an agreement with Mr. Dans (as Minister for Transportation and
Communication) for lease of LRTA property to the Philippine General Hospital Foundation of
which Mrs. Marcos was President. In this case Mrs. Marcos was acquitted, according to
petitioner, because she was a private individual, with PGHFI being a private charitable
institution.

The Court rejected the interpretation and help that Mrs. Marcos was not acquitted on the
ground that the petitioner claims, but rather because the public official with whom she was
accused to have conspired with was already acquitted- and she could not have violated RA
3019 as a single private individual.

To be indicted of the offense under Section 3 (g) of R.A. No. 3019, the following elements
must be present:

1)that the accused is a public officer;

2) that he entered into a contract or transaction on behalf of the government; and

3) that such contract or transaction is grossly and manifestly disadvantageous to the

government.

While it is true that the petitioner is indeed not a public official, the requirement is deemed to
have been met by reason that any contrary interpretation would go against the Declared
state policy to limit the acts of public officers and private individuals that would constitute
Graft and Corrupt Practices.

VIP: DISSENTING OPINION OF JUSTICE YNARES-SANTIAGO

NO. A private individual and public officer committing an act in conspiracy with each other
may be held liable for different crimes. Justice Ynares-Santiago makes use of the example
of Direct/Indirect Bribery- wherein the Public Officials shall be charged with the same, while
the private individual making the bribe shall be charged with violation with Art. 212 or
Corruption of Public Officials. Go may not be held liable for the simple reason that the
provision which properly punishes Private Individuals is not in Sec. 3, but rather in Section
4(b) punishing private individuals for inducing public officials to commit any of the acts in Art.
3 of RA 3019.