henry t. go vs the fifth division, sandiganbayan

7/24/2019 Henry T. Go vs The Fifth Division, Sandiganbayan

1/3

[G.R. NO. 172602 : April 16, 2009]

HENRY T. GO,Petitioner, v.THE FIFTH DIVISION, SANDIGANBAYAN!" THE OFFI#E OF THE S$E#IA% $ROSE#&TOR, OFFI#E OF THE

O'B&DS'AN,Respondents.

R E S O % & T I O N

YNARES(SANTIAGO, J.:

In its Motion for Reconsideration, respondent Office of the Special Prosecutorargues, citing Meneses v. People,1Balmadrid v. Sandiganbayan,2Domingo v.

Sandiganbayan,3and Singian v. Sandiganbayan,4that private persons whenconspiring with public officers ma be held liable for violation of Section 3!g"

of #epublic $ct !#.$." %o. 3&1'.

(he arguments presented b the Office of the Special Prosecutor convincedus to ta)e a second loo) at the case. *e maintain that to be indicted of the

offense under Section 3!g" of #.$. %o. 3&1', the following elements must bepresent+ !1" that the accused is a public officer !2" that he entered into a

contract or transaction on behalf of the government and !3" that such

contract or transaction is grossl and manifestl disadvantageous to thegovernment. However, if there is an allegation of conspirac, a private

person ma be held liable together with the public officer, in consonance withthe avowed polic of the $nti-raft and /orrupt Practices $ct which is 0to

repress certain acts of public officers and private persons ali)e which maconstitute graft or corrupt practices or which ma lead thereto.0

In the instant case, the Information charges icente /. #ivera, r., then

Secretar of the epartment of (ransportation and /ommunications, with

committing the offense under Section 3!g" of #.$. %o. 3&1' 0in conspiracwith accused 5%#6 (. O, /hairman and President of Philippine

International $ir (erminals, /o., Inc. !PI$(/O" 7 7 7.0

Pursuant to our ruling in Estrada v. Sandiganbayan,8said allegation of

conspirac is sufficient, thus+

(he re9uirements on sufficienc of allegations are different when conspiracis not charged as a crime in itself but onl as the mode of committing the

crime as in the case at bar. (here is less necessit of reciting its

particularities in the Information because conspirac is not the gravamen ofthe offense charged. 7 7 7
http://www.chanrobles.com/scdecisions/jurisprudence2009/apr2009/gr_172602_2009.php#fnt1http://www.chanrobles.com/scdecisions/jurisprudence2009/apr2009/gr_172602_2009.php#fnt2http://www.chanrobles.com/scdecisions/jurisprudence2009/apr2009/gr_172602_2009.php#fnt3http://www.chanrobles.com/scdecisions/jurisprudence2009/apr2009/gr_172602_2009.php#fnt4http://www.chanrobles.com/scdecisions/jurisprudence2009/apr2009/gr_172602_2009.php#fnt5http://www.chanrobles.com/scdecisions/jurisprudence2009/apr2009/gr_172602_2009.php#fnt2http://www.chanrobles.com/scdecisions/jurisprudence2009/apr2009/gr_172602_2009.php#fnt3http://www.chanrobles.com/scdecisions/jurisprudence2009/apr2009/gr_172602_2009.php#fnt4http://www.chanrobles.com/scdecisions/jurisprudence2009/apr2009/gr_172602_2009.php#fnt5http://www.chanrobles.com/scdecisions/jurisprudence2009/apr2009/gr_172602_2009.php#fnt1


2/3

7 7 7

:I;t is enough to allege conspirac as a mode in the commission of an

offense in either of the following manner+ !1" b use of the word 0conspire,0

or its derivatives or snonms, such as confederate, connive, collude, etc or

!2" b allegation of basic facts constituting the conspirac in a manner that aperson of common understanding would )now what is intended, and withsuch precision as would enable the accused to competentl enter a plea to a

subse9uent indictment based on the same facts.,2&&>, icente /. #ivera, r. was ac9uitted and the case against him

dismissed. (he dispositive portion of the ecision states+

*5#5?O#5, in view of the foregoing, accused icente /. #ivera, r.@s0=otion to ismiss b wa of emurrer to 5vidence0, dated September >,

2&&A, is hereb #$%(5. /riminal /ase %o. 2>&'2 for violation of Section

3!g" of #epublic $ct %o. 3&1', is ordered IS=ISS5 and accused I/5%(5/. #I5#$, #., is hereb $/BCI((5 of the offense charged.

(he cash bond posted b the accused to secure his provisional libert ishereb ordered returned to him, subDect to the usual accounting andauditing procedures.

(he old eparture Order issued b this /ourt against the accused dated?ebruar 18, 2&&8, is lifted and set aside.

(here can be no pronouncement as to civil liabilit as the facts from which

the same might arise were not proven in the case at bar.

SO ORDERED.

?rom the said ecision, the Office of the Special Prosecutor filed a Petition

for Certioraribefore this /ourt which was doc)eted as .#. %o. 1>8&48 and

captioned as People v. Sandiganbaan and #ivera. owever, on ecember 3,2&&>, the /ourt dismissed the petition, viE+
http://www.chanrobles.com/scdecisions/jurisprudence2009/apr2009/gr_172602_2009.php#fnt6http://www.chanrobles.com/scdecisions/jurisprudence2009/apr2009/gr_172602_2009.php#fnt6


3/3

(he /ourt resolves to IS=ISS the petition for certiorariof the ecision and#esolution dated 1> =arch 2&&> and 1< September 2&&>, respectivel, of

the Sandiganbaan in /riminal /ase %o. 2>&'2 for failure of the petitioner tosufficientl show that an grave abuse of discretion was committed b the

Sandiganbaan in rendering the challenged decision and resolution which, on

the contrar, appear to be in accord with the facts and the applicable lawand Durisprudence.chanroblesvirtual lawlibrar

(he said ecember 3, 2&&> #esolution became final and e7ecutor and was

recorded in the Foo) of 5ntries of udgments on ?ebruar 13, 2&&'.

Fased on the foregoing, it follows as a matter of course that the instant case

against herein petitioner enr (. o should li)ewise be dismissed. (heac9uittal of #ivera means that there was no public officer who allegedl

violated Section 3!g" of #.$. %o. 3&1'. (here being no public officer, it

follows that a private individual such as herein petitioner o could not besaid to have conspired with such public officer. (he basis for a finding of

conspirac against petitioner and #ivera has been removed conse9uentl,the case against enr (. o should li)ewise be dismissed.

*5#5?O#5, the =otion for #econsideration !of the #esolution dated

September 3, 2&&A" filed b the Office of the Special Prosecutor is 5%I5subDect to the 9ualification discussed in the bod of the decision. (he Praer

to #efer /ase to the Supreme /ourt 5n Fanc is li)ewise 5%I5. (he

/ommentGOpposition filed b petitioner o to the said =otion for#econsideration !of the #esolution dated September 3, 2&&A" *ith Praer to

#efer /ase to the Supreme /ourt 5n Fanc as well as the =anifestation and=otion are %O(5. (he Sandiganbaan is hereb I#5/(5 to IS=ISS

/riminal /ase %o. 2>&'2 against petitioner enr (. o.

SO ORDERED.

henry t. go vs the fifth division, sandiganbayan

Documents