Case Digest (G.R. No. 236308-09)
Facts:
Efren M. Canlas v. People of the Philippines and the Sandiganbayan (Third Division), G.R. Nos. 236308-09, February 17, 2020, the Supreme Court Second Division, Inting, J., writing for the Court. This is a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court challenging the Sandiganbayan Third Division’s Resolutions dated September 25, 2017 and November 20, 2017 that denied petitioner’s two Motions to Quash Information and his Motion for Reconsideration.Two Informations were filed in the Sandiganbayan (Criminal Case Nos. SB-16-CRM-0080 and SB-16-CRM-0084) charging petitioner, a private individual and representative of Hilmarc’s Construction Corporation, together with various public officers including former Makati Mayor Jejomar Erwin S. Binay, Jr., with violations of Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019 in relation to Phases IV and V of the Makati City Hall Parking Building projects (amounting to P649,275,681.73 and P141,649,366.00 respectively). The Informations alleged that petitioner, acting through Hilmarc’s, participated in simulated public bidding, caused the BAC Resolution to reflect Hilmarc’s as the Lowest Calculated and Responsive Bid, entered into contracts despite absent accepted plans and failures to post performance securities, and received payments despite deficient supporting documents.
Petitioner filed separate Motions to Quash (July 13 and July 19, 2017), arguing that Section 3 of RA 3019 applies only to public officers and that, as a private individual, he could only be liable under Section 4(b) (for inducing or causing a public officer to commit the offense), which the Informations did not allege. The People opposed, contending that private persons acting in conspiracy with public officers may be indicted under Section 3.
The Sandiganbayan denied both Motions to Quash in its Resolution of September 25, 2017, and denied petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration in its Resolution of November 20, 2017. Petitioner then filed the present Rule 65 petition seeking annulment of those Resolutions, a referral to the C...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did the Sandiganbayan commit grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in denying petitioner’s Motions to Quash the Informations?
- Can a private individual be charged and held liable under Section 3(e) of RA 3019 when he acts in conspiracy with public officers, or is liability for private persons limited ...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)