Canlas vs. People

Private individuals who act in conspiracy with public officers may be indicted and held liable for violations of Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019 (the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act), even though the provision primarily refers to public officers, provided they conspired with public officers in committing the corrupt practices defined therein; Section 4(b) of RA 3019 is not the exclusive provision governing liability of private individuals under the Act.

Efren M. Canlas served as the representative of Hilmarc's Construction Corporation (Hilmarc's) in transactions with the Makati City government regarding the construction of the Makati City Hall Parking Building. The prosecution alleged that Canlas conspired with former Makati City Mayor Jejomar Erwin S. Binay, Jr. and other public officers in awarding contracts to Hilmarc's for Phases IV and V of the project, valued at P649,275,681.73 and P141,649,366.00, respectively. The alleged anomalous acts included simulated public bidding, entering into contracts without approved plans and specifications, and processing payments despite deficiencies in supporting documents.

• Canlas is a private individual who served as the representative of Hilmarc's Construction Corporation (Hilmarc's) in its dealings with the Makati City government.
• Two Informations were filed before the Sandiganbayan charging Canlas and co-accused public officers, including former Mayor Jejomar Erwin S. Binay, Jr., with violations of Section 3(e) of RA 3019.
• Criminal Case No. SB-16-CRM-0080 involved Phase IV construction of the Makati City Hall Parking Building amounting to P649,275,681.73.
• Criminal Case No. SB-16-CRM-0084 involved Phase V construction of the same project amounting to P141,649,366.00.
• The Informations alleged that Canlas conspired with public officers in giving unwarranted benefits to Hilmarc's and causing undue injury to the Government through simulated public bidding.
• Specific acts attributed to Canlas included: (a) making it appear that Hilmarc's, through him, became the bidder with the Lowest Calculated and Responsive Bid despite the absence of public bidding; (b) entering into a contract for Phase IV construction despite the absence of accepted and approved plans and specifications and failure to post performance security; and (c) receiving payments despite baseless Accomplishment Reports and deficiencies in required supporting documents.
• Canlas filed Motions to Quash the Informations on the ground that the facts alleged did not constitute the offense charged because he is a private individual and Section 3 of RA 3019 applies only to public officers.
• Canlas argued that the Informations failed to allege that he induced or caused any public officer to commit a violation of Section 3(e) as required under Section 4(b) of RA 3019 for private individual liability.

• RA 3019 Section 3 explicitly applies only to public officers; since the Informations alleged that Canlas is a private individual, the charges against him are defective.
• As a private individual, Canlas can only be held liable under Section 4(b) of RA 3019, which requires allegation and proof that he knowingly induced or caused any public official to commit the offenses defined in Section 3.
• The Informations did not allege that Canlas induced or caused any public officer to commit a violation of Section 3(e), and therefore should be quashed under Section 3(a), Rule 117 of the Rules of Court for failure to state an offense.
• Conspiracy with public officers does not convert a private individual into a public officer, and therefore cannot be a basis for liability under Section 3(e).
• There is no existing case where a private person was held liable for violation of Section 3(e) of RA 3019 under Section 4(b) of the law.
• The case should be referred to the Court En Banc as it involves a question of jurisprudential policy.
• A temporary restraining order should be issued to restrain the Sandiganbayan from holding further proceedings in the two cases.

• A private individual, when acting in conspiracy with public officers, may be indicted and held liable for the pertinent offenses under Section 3 of RA 3019.
• By the very nature of the transaction involved, which is a government procurement, and by petitioner's indispensable acts toward the consummation of the offense, he should be indicted together with the accused public officials for violation of Section 3(e) of RA 3019.
• The issuance of a temporary restraining order to hold in abeyance a criminal prosecution is proscribed.
• The Sandiganbayan did not commit grave abuse of discretion in denying the motions to quash.

• Procedural:
  • Whether the Sandiganbayan committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in denying the motions to quash the informations and the motion for reconsideration.
• Substantive Issues:
  • Whether a private individual may be held liable under Section 3(e) of RA 3019 despite the provision's reference to public officers.
  • Whether Section 4(b) of RA 3019 is the exclusive avenue for holding private individuals criminally liable under the Act.
  • Whether the Informations sufficiently state an offense against Canlas as a private individual without alleging that he induced or caused public officers to commit the violation.

• Procedural:
  • The Sandiganbayan did not commit grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in denying petitioner's motions to quash the informations and the motion for reconsideration. The Sandiganbayan correctly applied the well-settled doctrine regarding the liability of private individuals under Section 3 of RA 3019.
• Substantive:
  • Private persons, when acting in conspiracy with public officers, may be indicted and held liable for the pertinent offenses under Section 3 of RA 3019, 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.
  • The elements of Section 3(e) of RA 3019 are: (i) the accused must be a public officer discharging administrative, judicial, or official functions, or a private individual acting in conspiracy with such public officers; (ii) he acted with manifest partiality, evident bad faith, or inexcusable negligence; and (iii) his action caused any undue injury to any party, including the government, or gave any private party unwarranted benefits, advantage, or preference in the discharge of his functions.
  • Section 4(b) of RA 3019 is not the exclusive provision governing private individual liability; it covers a different mode of participation (knowingly inducing or causing), whereas Section 3(e) directly covers private individuals who conspire with public officers in the commission of the act described in Section 3(e).
  • The petition, together with the prayer for referral to the Court En Banc and issuance of a temporary restraining order, should be denied.

• Conspiracy Liability of Private Individuals under RA 3019 — Private persons, when acting in conspiracy with public officers, may be indicted and held liable for the pertinent offenses under Section 3 of RA 3019, 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 or which may lead thereto. This doctrine applies even though Section 3 primarily refers to public officers, provided the private individual conspired with public officers in the commission of the offense.
• Elements of Section 3(e) of RA 3019 — The offense requires: (i) the accused is a public officer discharging administrative, judicial, or official functions, or a private individual acting in conspiracy with such public officers; (ii) the accused acted with manifest partiality, evident bad faith, or inexcusable negligence; and (iii) the action caused undue injury to any party, including the government, or gave unwarranted benefits, advantage, or preference to any private party in the discharge of official functions.

• "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, 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."
• "The well-settled rule is that '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...'"

• PCGG v. Office of the Ombudsman (G.R. No. 194619, March 20, 2019) — Cited for the reiteration of the elements of Section 3(e) of RA 3019, specifically recognizing that a private individual acting in conspiracy with public officers may be held liable under the provision.
• Go v. The Fifth Division, Sandiganbayan (549 Phil. 783 (2007)) — Cited for the ruling that private individuals may be charged with violations of Section 3 of RA 3019 when acting in conspiracy with public officers, relying on the precedent set in Singian, Jr.
• Singian, Jr. v. Sandiganbayan (514 Phil. 536 (2005)) — Cited as controlling precedent where a private individual (Executive Vice President of Integrated Shoe, Inc.) was charged with violation of both paragraphs (e) and (g) of Section 3 of RA 3019 in connection with behest loans, establishing that private individuals may be indicted under Section 3 when conspiring with public officers.
• Uyboco v. People (749 Phil. 987 (2014)) — Cited for affirming the conviction of a private individual who acted in conspiracy with a public officer in the procurement of overpriced dump trucks under Section 3(e) of RA 3019.
• PCGG v. Navarra-Gutierrez, et al. (772 Phil. 91 (2015)) — Cited for reversing the Office of the Ombudsman's ruling and finding probable cause to indict private respondents together with public respondents for violation of Section 3(e) and (g) of RA 3019 regarding behest loans.

• Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act) — Defines the corrupt practice of causing undue injury to any party, including the Government, or giving any private party unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference in the discharge of official functions through manifest partiality, evident bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence; applicable to public officers or private individuals acting in conspiracy with them.
• Section 4(b) of Republic Act No. 3019 — Makes it unlawful for any person knowingly to induce or cause any public official to commit any of the offenses defined in Section 3; invoked by petitioner as the exclusive provision for private individual liability.
• Section 3(a), Rule 117 of the Rules of Court — Ground for motion to quash that the facts charged do not constitute an offense; invoked by petitioner in assailing the Informations.
• Rule 65 of the Rules of Court — Basis for the Petition for Certiorari filed before the Supreme Court assailing the resolutions of the Sandiganbayan.