Case Summary (G.R. No. 168539)
Procedural History and Origin of the Case
The Petition for Review on Certiorari challenges the Sandiganbayan Third Division’s June 2, 2005 Resolution quashing the Information against respondent for conspiracy under Section 3(g) of R.A. 3019. The case arose from this Court’s May 5, 2003 decision in Agan, Jr. v. PIATCO, which nullified government contracts for NAIA IPT III, prompting a complaint to the Ombudsman and a finding of probable cause on September 16, 2004.
Information and Charges
By Information dated January 13, 2005, Go was charged with conspiring with Secretary Enrile to enter into a Concession Agreement grossly disadvantageous to the Government, in violation of Section 3(g), R.A. 3019. The alleged conspiracy involved amendments favoring PIATCO on public utility revenues and assumption of liabilities by the Government.
Sandiganbayan’s Show-Cause Order and Prosecution’s Response
On March 10, 2005, the Sandiganbayan ordered the prosecution to show cause why the case should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction over Go, a private individual whose co-conspirator, Enrile, had died. The prosecution asserted that Go had voluntarily submitted to jurisdiction by appearing, moving for consolidation, and posting bail, and that the Sandiganbayan had exclusive jurisdiction over R.A. 3019 offenses even when a private person is implicated.
Motion to Quash and Sandiganbayan Resolution
Go filed a Motion to Quash on April 28, 2005, arguing that (1) the alleged facts did not establish an offense under Section 3(g) and (2) without a living public officer co-defendant, the Court lacked jurisdiction over a private person under the conspiracy provision of R.A. 3019. On June 2, 2005, the Sandiganbayan granted the motion, dismissing the Information for lack of personal jurisdiction.
Issues Raised in the Petition
The petition presented three issues:
- Whether the Sandiganbayan erred in dismissing the case for lack of jurisdiction over Go.
- Whether posting bail and filing affirmative motions deprived the Sandiganbayan of jurisdiction.
- Whether dismissal violated the Equal Protection Clause of the 1987 Constitution.
Elements of Section 3(g), R.A. 3019
Under R.A. 3019, Sec. 3(g) penalizes any public officer who “enters into any contract manifestly and grossly disadvantageous to the Government.” The elements are: (1) the accused is a public officer; (2) entry into a government contract or transaction; and (3) gross and manifest disadvantage to the Government. The Anti-Graft Act’s policy is to penalize both public officers and private persons who conspire with them.
Liability of Private Persons in Conspiracy
It is settled that private individuals may be indicted and held liable as co-principals for corrupt practices when they act in conspiracy with public officers. Conspiracy forms a basis for collective criminal liability: an overt act by any conspirator is attributable to all.
Effect of Co-conspirator’s Death on Liability
The death of a conspirator extinguishes personal liability but does not extinguish the crime or expunge the conspiracy. The law does not require that all conspirators be charged jointly. A private person may be prosecuted alone if the public officer co-conspirator is unavailable due to death.
Doctrine of Collective Liability for Conspiracy
Philippine jurisprudence, consistent with common-law principles, holds that once a conspiracy is proven, each conspirator is jointly responsible for acts committed in furtherance of the common design. Collective liability ensures that conspiracies cannot evade prosecution by the demise of one participant.
Factual Determination of Conspiracy
Whether conspiracy exists is a factual question involving evidentiary matters. The allegation of conspiracy against Go must be explored and proven at trial, where he may introduce evidence to disprove it.
Jurisdiction over Respondent’s Person and Waiver
By voluntarily appearing, posting bail, and filing motions for
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 168539)
Procedural Background
- Petition for review on certiorari filed before the Supreme Court assailing the Sandiganbayan Third Division’s Resolution of June 2, 2005, which quashed the Information against respondent.
- The quashed Information stemmed from a complaint prefaced on this Court’s Decision in Agan, Jr. v. PIATCO, which nullified government contracts for the construction and operation of NAIA International Passenger Terminal III.
- A complaint was filed with the Office of the Ombudsman by Ma. Cecilia L. Pesayco; probable cause was found on September 16, 2004, against respondent and then-DOTC Secretary Arturo Enrile, though Enrile died before indictment.
Facts of the Case
- PIATCO, chaired by Henry T. Go, entered into a Concession Agreement with the DOTC for NAIA IPT III.
- The agreement, executed around July 12, 1997, amended the draft concession under R.A. 6957 (as amended by R.A. 7718), modifying provisions on Public Utility Revenues and government assumption of PIATCO liabilities.
- These amendments allegedly conferred undue benefits to PIATCO and were manifestly and grossly disadvantageous to the Republic of the Philippines.
Concession Agreement and Alleged Irregularities
- The Concession Agreement substantially amended the BOT law’s draft agreement covering NAIA IPT III.
- Key contested provisions:
- Article IV, Section 4.04(b) and (c) and Article 1.06 concerning Public Utility Revenues.
- Government’s assumption of PIATCO’s liabilities in case of default.
- The Information alleged that these terms favored PIATCO and harmed government interests.
Information and Charges
- Information dated January 13, 2005, docketed as Criminal Case No. 28090 before the Sandiganbayan.
- Charged under Section 3(g), R.A. 3019, for conspiring with Secretary Enrile to enter into a grossly disadvantageous contract on behalf of the government.
- SB issued a March 10, 2005 Order for the prosecution to show cause on jurisdiction over respondent, a private individual, given the co-conspirator’s death.
Motions Before the Sandiganbayan
- Prosecution’s Show Cause Compliance:
- Argued SB had acquired personal jurisdiction via respondent’s voluntary appearance, posting bail, and motion for consolidati