G.R. No. 168539 - People vs. Go

In Agan, Jr. v. Philippine International Air Terminals Co., Inc. (May 5, 2003), the Supreme Court nullified the contracts awarded by the Department of Transportation and Communications (DOTC) to PIATCO for the NAIA IPT III project.
Subsequent to that decision, Ma. Cecilia L. Pesayco filed a complaint with the Office of the Ombudsman, alleging that DOTC Secretary Arturo Enrile and Henry T. Go (PIATCO’s Chairman and President) conspired to enter into a Concession Agreement manifestly disadvantageous to the Government in violation of Section 3(g), R.A. 3019.

On September 16, 2004, the Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for Luzon found probable cause to indict Enrile and Go for violation of Section 3(g), R.A. 3019. Secretary Enrile died before indictment; an Information dated January 13, 2005 charged Go alone.
On March 10, 2005, the Sandiganbayan ordered the prosecution to show cause why the case should not be dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction over Go, a private individual whose alleged public‐official co-conspirator was deceased.
Go filed on April 28, 2005 a Motion to Quash, contending that (a) the Information failed to state an offense under Section 3(g) and (b) the Sandiganbayan lacked jurisdiction over a private person when his alleged co-conspirator was no longer before the court. On June 2, 2005, the Sandiganbayan granted the Motion to Quash and dismissed Criminal Case No. 28090.

The People filed a petition under Rule 45, raising that the Sandiganbayan gravely erred (a) in dismissing for lack of personal jurisdiction, (b) in ignoring Go’s posting of bail, and (c) in violating equal protection.
The Supreme Court, sitting En Banc, granted the petition, reversed and set aside the Sandiganbayan’s resolution, and directed the court below to proceed with deliberate dispatch in Criminal Case No. 28090.

Whether the Sandiganbayan erred in dismissing the Information for lack of jurisdiction over Go, a private person whose alleged public-official co-conspirator had died.
Whether the Sandiganbayan erred in ruling that it lacked jurisdiction over Go despite his posting of bail and other voluntary appearances.
Whether the dismissal of the Information violated the equal protection clause by treating Go differently from other private co-conspirators under R.A. 3019.