Case Summary (G.R. No. 172602)
Applicable Law
The primary law at issue is Republic Act No. 3019, particularly Section 3(g), which penalizes public officers who engage in contracts that are manifestly and grossly disadvantageous to the government. The pertinent constitutional framework is the 1987 Philippine Constitution, relevant due to the decision date being in 2008.
Factual Background
The conflict emerged from an Amended and Restated Concession Agreement (ARCA) related to the construction of the Ninoy Aquino International Passenger Terminal III. It was alleged that Rivera, in conspiracy with Go, unlawfully entered into this agreement, which favored the interests of the Philippine International Air Terminals, Co., Inc. (PIATCO) and put the government at a disadvantage.
Elements of the Crime
According to Section 3(g), three essential elements need to be established for a violation: (1) the accused must be a public officer, (2) the accused must enter into a contract on behalf of the government, and (3) the contract must be manifestly or grossly disadvantageous to the government. The law emphasizes that it is the nature of the act itself that is critical—malice or criminal intent is immaterial, highlighting the malum prohibitum nature of the statute.
Distinction Between Public Officers and Private Individuals
The Court clarified that the offense defined in Section 3(g) can only be committed by public officers. In prior cases, such as Luciano v. Estrella, it was established that even if a private individual conspired with public officers, their liability under Section 4(b) of the same Act requires proof of criminal intent. Therefore, the criminal liability of public officials for Section 3(g) is separate and distinct from that of private citizens.
Information and Charges
The information stated that both Rivera and Go were accused of committing a violation of Section 3(g) due to their involvement in entering into the ARCA. The specifics of the allegation pointed to provisions benefiting PIATCO, which were deemed to be unfavorable to the government and clearly indicated a privileging of private interests over public welfare.
Court’s Rationale and Conclusion
Upon granting the motion for reconsideration filed by Henry T. Go, the Court determined that he could not be charged under Section 3(g) for a violation that might only be
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 172602)
Case Overview
- The case concerns a Motion for Reconsideration filed by petitioner Henry T. Go against the Decision dated April 13, 2007, which involved allegations of corruption under Republic Act No. 3019.
- The petitioner was charged with violation of Section 3(g) of the said Act, which penalizes public officers engaging in contracts that are grossly disadvantageous to the government.
- The ruling determines the scope of liability for public officers and the distinction from private individuals in such cases.
Background of the Case
- Henry T. Go, a private individual, was implicated alongside Vicente C. Rivera, Jr., the Secretary of the Department of Transportation and Communications (DOTC), concerning the Amended and Restated Concession Agreement (ARCA) related to the construction of the Ninoy Aquino International Passenger Terminal III (NAIA IPT III).
- The charge asserts that Rivera, in conspiracy with Go, entered into an ARCA that favored PIATCO, the private company, at the government's expense.
Legal Framework
- Section 3(g) of Republic Act No. 3019 outlines the legal definition and implications of public officers entering into manifestly disadvantageous contracts.
- The provision is strictly applicable to public officers, emphasizi