7/24/2019 Henry t. Go vs Sandiganbayan

1/1

G.R. No. 172602 April 13, 2007HENRY T. GO vs.THE FIFTH DIVISION, SANDIGANBAYAN an THE OFFI!E OF THE S"E!IA#

"ROSE!$TOR, OFFI!E OF THE O%B$DS%AN

Vicente C. Rivera, then DOTC Secretary, and petitioner Henry Go, Chairman and President ofPIATCO, ere char!ed ith vio"ation of Section #$!% of RA #&'(, a"so )non as the Anti*Graft and

Corr+pt Practices Act. Go, in re"ation to the voided '(( Concession A!reement and the Amendedand Restated Concession A!reement $ARCA% entered into -y the !overnment ith Phi"ippineInternationa" Air Termina"s Co., Inc $PIATCO%.

Petitioner Go contended that it as error to char!e him ith the vio"ation !iven that he as not ap+-"ic officer, a necessary e"ement of the offense +nder Sec #$!% of RA #&'(. He f+rther assert thatconspiracy -y a private party ith a p+-"ic officer is char!ea-"e on"y ith the offense +nder Sec#$e%.

Iss+e/hether or not Petitioner Go, a private person, may -e char!ed ith vio"ation of Sec #$!% of RA#&'(.

R+"in!

The app"ication of the anti*!raft "a e0tends to -oth p+-"ic officers and private persons.Private persons, hen actin! in conspiracy ith p+-"ic officers, may -e indicted and, if fo+nd !+i"ty,he"d "ia-"e for the pertinent offenses +nder Section # of RA #&'(. This is in consonance ith theavoed po"icy of the anti*!raft "a to repress certain acts of p+-"ic officers and private persons a"i)econstit+tin! !raft or corr+pt practices act or hich may "ead thereto.

1arcos vs. Sandi!an-ayan is inapp"ica-"e to Go2s case. In the former, Dans, the p+-"ic officer andith hom 1arcos had a""e!ed"y conspired ith in committin! Section #$!% of RA #&'(, had a"ready-een ac3+itted. 1arcos co+"d then not -e convicted, on her on as a private person, of the said

offense.

The findin! of pro-a-"e ca+se a!ainst petitioner -y the Office of the Om-+dsman is a f+nction d+"y-e"on!in! to the "atter. The e0ercise of s+ch f+nction cannot -e medd"ed ith -y the co+rts -y virt+eof the doctrine of non*interference e0cept for compe""in! reasons.