G.R. No. 172602 April 13, 2007
HENRY T. GO vs.THE
FIFTH DIVISION, SANDIGANBAYAN and THE OFFICE OF THE SPECIAL PROSECUTOR, OFFICE
OF THE OMBUDSMAN
Vicente C. Rivera, then DOTC Secretary, and
petitioner Henry Go, Chairman and President of PIATCO, were charged with
violation of Section 3(g) of RA 3019, also known as the Anti-Graft and
Corrupt Practices Act. Go, in relation to the voided 1997 Concession Agreement
and the Amended and Restated Concession Agreement (ARCA) entered into by the
government with Philippine International Air Terminals Co., Inc (PIATCO).
Petitioner Go contended that it was error to
charge him with the violation given that he was not a public officer, a
necessary element of the offense under Sec 3(g) of RA 3019. He further assert
that conspiracy by a private party with a public officer is chargeable only
with the offense under Sec3(e).
Issue:
Whether or not Petitioner Go, a private person,
may be charged with violation of Sec 3(g) of RA 3019.
Ruling:
The application of the anti-graft law extends to
both public officers and private persons.
Private persons, when acting in conspiracy with
public officers, may be indicted and, if found guilty, held liable for the
pertinent offenses under Section 3 of RA 3019. This is in consonance with the
avowed policy of the anti-graft law to repress certain acts of public officers
and private persons alike constituting graft or corrupt practices act or which
may lead thereto.
Marcos vs. Sandiganbayan is inapplicable to Go’s
case. In the former, Dans, the public officer and with whom Marcos had
allegedly conspired with in committing Section 3(g) of RA 3019, had already
been acquitted. Marcos could then not be convicted, on her own as a
private person, of the said offense.
The finding of probable cause against petitioner
by the Office of the Ombudsman is a function duly belonging to the latter. The
exercise of such function cannot be meddled with by the courts by virtue of the
doctrine of non-interference except for compelling reasons.
0 comments:
Post a Comment