G.R. No. 172602 - Go vs. Sandiganbayan

Henry T. Go, Chairman and President of Philippine International Air Terminals, Co., Inc. (PIATCO).

Vicente C. Rivera, Jr., Secretary of the Department of Transportation and Communications (DOTC).

The petitioner was charged with the violation of Section 3(g) of Republic Act No. 3019, which penalizes public officers who enter into contracts or transactions manifestly and grossly disadvantageous to the government.
The information alleged that despite the absence of personal profit, the act of entering the contract on behalf of the government constituted the offense.
The charge is rooted on the premise that public officers have a duty to safeguard the interest of the government and must not approve transactions that are manifestly detrimental to it.

The case centers on an amended and restated concession agreement (ARCA) related to the construction of Ninoy Aquino International Passenger Terminal III (NAIA IPT III).
The project for the construction of NAIA IPT III was originally awarded to Paircargo Consortium/PIATCO, and the subsequent ARCA was alleged to have substantially amended the draft agreement to the disadvantage of the government.
Specific contractual terms, such as the assumption by the government of PIATCO’s liabilities in the event of default (particularly Article IV, Section 4.04 A in relation to Article I, Section 1.06 of the ARCA), were held to be in violation of the BOT Law and manifestly disadvantageous to the government.

The accusation was filed by the Graft Investigation and Prosecution Officer II of the Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for Luzon.
The charging document included allegations of conspiracy between a public officer (Rivera) and a private individual (Go), even though Section 3(g) is traditionally confined to public officers only.
The information emphasized that for a violation of Section 3(g) to be established, it is sufficient to prove that the accused is a public officer who, in relation to his office and in concert with others, signed or entered into a contract that was grossly and manifestly disadvantageous to the government.

The prosecution’s case relied heavily on the language of Section 3(g) of R.A. 3019, highlighting its focus on public officers and the stringent duty imposed upon them.
The opinions rendered in earlier cases, such as Luciano v. Estrella, were cited to demonstrate that Section 3(g) is of the nature of malum prohibitum, where the act’s classification and statutory definition—not any particular malice—is determinative.
The case also noted that while other parts of Section 3 and Section 4 of the Act may extend to private individuals, Section 3(g) is expressly limited to public officers.

Whether Section 3(g) of Republic Act No. 3019, by its terms and legislative intent, may be applied to private individuals such as petitioner Henry T. Go.
Whether the allegation of conspiracy—with a private individual being implicated alongside a public officer—can serve as a basis for extending criminal liability under Section 3(g).
Whether the amended concession agreement (ARCA) evidenced terms that were manifestly and grossly disadvantageous to the government, fulfilling the statutory elements of the offense.
How the strict construction of penal statutes impacts the interpretation of statutory provisions, particularly those limiting liability to specific classes of persons (i.e., public officers versus private individuals).