Title
Canlas vs. People
Case
G.R. No. 236308-09
Decision Date
Feb 17, 2020
Private individual conspired with public officers in a simulated bidding for a construction project, violating anti-graft laws; liability upheld by Supreme Court.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 236308-09)

Procedural History

Petitioner moved to quash both informations on grounds that (1) Section 3 of RA 3019 applies only to public officers, and (2) as a private individual he could only be liable under Section 4(b), yet the informations did not allege inducement of any public officer. The Sandiganbayan denied both motions and the subsequent motion for reconsideration. Petitioner filed a Rule 65 certiorari petition before the Supreme Court, also seeking referral en banc and a temporary restraining order against further proceedings.

Petitioner’s Arguments

  1. A private individual cannot be charged under Section 3(e) of RA 3019; only public officers fall within its ambit.
  2. Liability of private persons is confined to Section 4(b) (inducing or causing a public officer to commit graft), which was not alleged.
  3. Conspiracy with public officers does not transform a private person into a public officer.
  4. No precedent exists holding a private person liable under Section 3(e) by virtue of Section 4(b).

Prosecution’s Position

The People maintained that a private individual acting in conspiracy with public officers may be indicted under Section 3 of RA 3019. Given petitioner’s indispensable role in the procurement scheme, he should stand charged together with the officials. The prosecution also opposed issuance of a TRO, noting that halting a criminal prosecution is disfavored.

Supreme Court’s Analysis on Liability of Private Individuals

The Court affirmed the rule that private persons who conspiringly act with public officers may be indicted and held liable under Section 3 of RA 3019. It found no grave abuse of discretion by the Sandiganbayan in denying the motions to quash. The Court declined to revisit established doctrine.

Relevant Jurisprudence

  1. PCGG v. Office of the Ombudsman (2019) – Elements of Section 3(e):
    a. Accused must be a public officer or private individual acting in conspiracy;
    b. Manifest partiality, bad faith, or negligence;
    c. Undue injury to government or unwarranted benefit to private party.
  2. Singian, Jr. v. Sandiganbayan (2005) – Indictment of private executive for Section 3(e) a

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources.