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

Case Summary (G.R. No. 168539)

Key Dates and Applicable Law

Applicable Constitution: 1987 Philippine Constitution (decision rendered post-1990). Applicable statute: Republic Act No. 3019, Section 3(g). Jurisdictional statute for the forum: Sandiganbayan’s exclusive original jurisdiction under P.D. 1606 as amended by R.A. 8249 for certain graft offenses involving public officers and co-principals.

Charges and Factual Allegations

The Information charged respondent with conspiracy with Secretary Enrile to enter into a Concession Agreement materially amending a draft agreement under the BOT law (R.A. 6957, as amended by R.A. 7718) in terms favorable to PIATCO and grossly disadvantageous to the government. The alleged acts concerned provisions on public utility revenues and government assumption of certain PIATCO liabilities. The Information was filed as Criminal Case No. 28090.

Initial Proceedings in the Sandiganbayan

After indictment, the Sandiganbayan issued an order requiring the prosecution to show cause why the case should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction over respondent’s person, reasoning that respondent was a private person while his alleged co-conspirator was deceased. The prosecution argued the court had acquired jurisdiction by virtue of respondent’s voluntary appearance, posting of bail, and filing of a motion for consolidation; it also maintained that the Sandiganbayan had exclusive jurisdiction because the offense involved conspiracy with a public officer.

Motion to Quash and Sandiganbayan Resolution

Respondent moved to quash the Information on the ground that the alleged facts did not constitute an offense under Section 3(g) and that, with Secretary Enrile deceased, respondent — a private person who was not a public officer or government agent — could not be prosecuted under Section 3(g). The Sandiganbayan granted the Motion to Quash on June 2, 2005, dismissing the Information for lack of jurisdiction over the person of respondent because the public officer co-conspirator was already deceased.

Issues Presented to the Supreme Court

The petition for review presented, inter alia, whether the Sandiganbayan gravely erred (1) in dismissing the Information for lack of jurisdiction over respondent’s person; (2) in failing to recognize that respondent’s posting of bail and filing of motions submitted him to the court’s jurisdiction; and (3) in denying equal protection by quashing the Information under those circumstances.

Legal Standard — Elements of Section 3(g)

Section 3(g) of R.A. 3019 criminalizes a public officer’s entry, on behalf of the government, into any contract manifestly and grossly disadvantageous to the government. The Court reiterated the elements of Section 3(g): (1) the accused is a public officer; (2) the accused entered into a contract or transaction on behalf of the government; and (3) the contract or transaction is grossly and manifestly disadvantageous to the government. The Court also recognized the settled rule that private persons who act in conspiracy with public officers may be indicted and held liable under Section 3.

Conspiracy Doctrine and Its Application

The Court emphasized that conspiracy, as applied in Philippine jurisprudence, is a rule for collectivizing criminal liability: where two or more persons agree to commit a felony and one or more perform overt acts in furtherance thereof, all conspirators are jointly responsible, and acts of any conspirator done pursuant to the agreement are attributable to all. The Court cited prior decisions establishing that conspiracy may be proved by evidence at trial and that once proved, collective liability attaches regardless of the degree of participation.

Effect of Co-conspirator’s Death on Prosecution

The Court rejected respondent’s contention that the death of the public officer co-conspirator destroyed the basis for prosecuting the private person. It held that the death of a co-conspirator extinguishes the deceased’s criminal liability but does not extinguish the underlying crime nor the existence of the conspiracy. Consequently, a private person may be indicted and tried alone for conspiracy with a public officer who is no longer available for prosecution (e.g., by reason of death), because it is not necessary to join all alleged co-conspirators in a single indictment.

Jurisdiction Over Person — Effect of Bail and Litigation Conduct

The Court found that respondent’s conduct in the proceedings — specifically posting bail for pr

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 168539)

Procedural Posture and Case Citation

Decision rendered by the Supreme Court En Banc in G.R. No. 168539, March 25, 2014; reported at 730 Phil. 362; 110 O.G. No. 47, 7094 (November 24, 2014).
Petition for review on certiorari filed by the People of the Philippines assailing the Sandiganbayan, Third Division Resolution dated June 2, 2005, which quashed the Information against respondent Henry T. Go for alleged violation of Section 3(g) of Republic Act No. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act).
Criminal Case No. 28090 docketed in the Sandiganbayan (information dated January 13, 2005).
The petition raises three stated issues challenging the Sandiganbayan’s demurrer to evidence/dismissal for lack of jurisdiction over the person and alleged equal protection violation (questions reproduced from the petition in the source).
Parties: People of the Philippines (petitioner) v. Henry T. Go (respondent). Decision authored by Justice Peralta; concurring justices listed; Chief Justice Sereno and Justice Del Castillo noted as having no part; Justices Perlas-Bernabe and Leonen were on leave.

Factual Background

The Information against Henry T. Go arose out of this Court’s Decision in Agan, Jr. v. Philippine International Air Terminals Co., Inc. (G.R. Nos. 155001, 155547 and 155661, May 5, 2003, 402 SCRA 612), which nullified various contracts awarded by the Government, through the Department of Transportation and Communications (DOTC), to Philippine Air Terminals, Co., Inc. (PIATCO) for construction, operation and maintenance of NAIA International Passenger Terminal III (NAIA IPT III).
Following that decision, Ma. Cecilia L. Pesayco filed a complaint with the Office of the Ombudsman against several individuals for alleged violations of R.A. 3019; among those charged was Henry T. Go, then Chairman and President of PIATCO.
The Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for Luzon found probable cause on September 16, 2004 to indict, among others, Henry T. Go for violation of Section 3(g) of R.A. 3019. There was likewise a finding of probable cause against then DOTC Secretary Arturo Enrile, but he died prior to indictment.
The Information charged that on or about July 12, 1997 (or sometime prior or subsequent thereto) in Pasay City, Secretary Enrile, committing the offense in relation to his office and in conspiracy with Henry T. Go, willfully, unlawfully and criminally entered into a Concession Agreement (after the project had been awarded to Paircargo Consortium/PIATCO) which substantially amended the draft Concession Agreement under RA 6957 as amended by RA 7718, specifically altering provisions on Public Utility Revenues and government assumption of PIATCO liabilities (Article IV, Section 4.04(b) and (c) in relation to Article 1.06), allegedly terms more beneficial to PIATCO and manifestly and grossly disadvantageous to the Republic of the Philippines.

Procedural History in the Sandiganbayan

March 10, 2005: Sandiganbayan issued an order giving the prosecution 10 days to show cause why the case should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction over the person of the accused, considering that the accused is a private person and the alleged public co-conspirator, Arturo Enrile, was deceased and not an accused in the case.
The prosecution filed a compliance contending (a) the Sandiganbayan acquired jurisdiction over respondent by reason of his voluntary appearance, his motion for consolidation, and his posting of bail; and (b) the Sandiganbayan has exclusive jurisdiction over the offense even if the accused is a private person alleged to have conspired with a public officer.
April 2005: Respondent filed a Motion to Quash the Information on the ground that the operative facts do not constitute an offense under Section 3(g) and, citing the SB show-cause order, argued that independently of the deceased Secretary Enrile, respondent—being a private person and not a public officer or government agent—could not be prosecuted for violation of Section 3(g).
- The source records respondent’s Motion to Quash was filed on April 28, 2005; the Sandiganbayan Resolution quotes the Motion as dated April 22, 2005.
June 2, 2005: Sandiganbayan, Third Division, issued the assailed Resolution granting respondent’s Motion to Quash and quashing and dismissing the Information for lack of jurisdiction over the person of the accused, on the ground that the lone accused was a private person and his alleged co-conspirator (a public official) was deceased long before the case was filed.

Issues Presented to the Supreme Court (as framed in the petition)

Whether the Sandiganbayan gravely erred and decided a question of substance not in accord with law or jurisprudence in granting the demurrer to evidence/dismissing Criminal Case No. 28090 on ground of lack of jurisdiction over respondent’s person.
Whether the Sandiganbayan gravely erred in ruling it has no jurisdiction despite respondent’s having posted bail for provisional liberty.
Whether the Sandiganbayan gravely erred and disregarded the equal protection clause by quashing the Information and dismissing Criminal Case No. 28090.

Statutory Provision at Issue and Elements (Section 3(g), R.A. 3019)

Section 3(g), R.A. 3019 reads: “Entering, on behalf of the Government, into any contract or transaction manifestly and grossly disadvantageous to the same, whether or not the public officer profited or will profit thereby.”
The elements of Section 3(g) are set out in the Decision as:
1. The accused is a public officer;
2. He entered