Go vs. Sandiganbayan

A private person may be held liable for violation of Section 3(g) of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act when conspiring with a public officer; however, where the public officer is acquitted and such acquittal becomes final and executory, the case against the private individual charged as a co-conspirator must likewise be dismissed because the basis for conspiracy is extinguished.

The case arose from the controversy surrounding the construction of the Ninoy Aquino International Airport (NAIA) Terminal 3. Petitioner Henry T. Go served as Chairman and President of PIATCO, the private consortium awarded the contract to build and operate the terminal. Vicente C. Rivera, Jr., then Secretary of the Department of Transportation and Communications, was charged alongside Go for allegedly entering into a contract on behalf of the government that was grossly and manifestly disadvantageous to the same.

• Henry T. Go is the Chairman and President of Philippine International Air Terminals Co., Inc. (PIATCO), a private corporation.
• Vicente C. Rivera, Jr. was the Secretary of the Department of Transportation and Communications (DOTC), a public officer.
• An Information was filed charging Rivera with violation of Section 3(g) of Republic Act No. 3019, alleging that he entered into a contract on behalf of the government "in conspiracy with accused HENRY T. GO."
• The Sandiganbayan acquitted Rivera in its Decision dated March 18, 2008, finding that the facts charged were not proven.
• The Office of the Special Prosecutor filed a Petition for Certiorari (G.R. No. 185045) to assail Rivera's acquittal, but the Supreme Court dismissed the petition in its Resolution dated December 3, 2008, which became final and executory on February 13, 2009.
• The Office of the Special Prosecutor filed a Motion for Reconsideration in G.R. No. 172602 arguing that private persons, when conspiring with public officers, may be held liable for violation of Section 3(g) of R.A. No. 3019.

• Henry T. Go filed a Comment/Opposition to the Motion for Reconsideration (specific arguments not detailed in the text).
• Maintained that with the final acquittal of Rivera, the public officer, there no longer exists a basis to prosecute him as a private individual for conspiracy to violate Section 3(g) of R.A. No. 3019.

• Citing Meneses v. People, Balmadrid v. Sandiganbayan, Domingo v. Sandiganbayan, and Singian v. Sandiganbayan, the Office of the Special Prosecutor argued that private persons who conspire with public officers may be held liable for violation of Section 3(g) of R.A. No. 3019.
• Asserted that the allegation in the Information that Rivera acted "in conspiracy with accused HENRY T. GO" was sufficient in form and substance to charge Go as a co-conspirator.

• Procedural Issues: Whether the Supreme Court should grant the Motion for Reconsideration of its Resolution dated September 3, 2007 in G.R. No. 172602, and whether the case should be referred to the Supreme Court En Banc.
• Substantive Issues: (1) Whether a private person may be held liable for violation of Section 3(g) of R.A. No. 3019 when conspiring with a public officer; and (2) Whether the final acquittal of the public officer (Rivera) necessitates the dismissal of the case against the private individual (Go).

• Procedural: The Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED subject to the qualification discussed in the body of the Resolution. The Prayer to Refer the Case to the Supreme Court En Banc is likewise DENIED.
• Substantive: The Court held that private persons may be held liable under Section 3(g) of R.A. No. 3019 when conspiring with public officers, consistent with the policy of the Anti-Graft Law "to repress certain acts of public officers and private persons alike which may constitute graft or corrupt practices." The allegation of conspiracy in the Information was sufficient under the standards set forth in Estrada v. Sandiganbayan. However, since Rivera was acquitted and such acquittal became final and executory, there is no longer a public officer who violated Section 3(g). Consequently, Go could not have conspired with a public officer, and the basis for the conspiracy charge against him has been removed. The Sandiganbayan is directed to dismiss Criminal Case No. 28092 against petitioner Henry T. Go.

• Conspiracy as a Mode of Committing a Crime — When conspiracy is alleged only as the mode of committing the offense (and not as a separate crime), it is sufficient to allege it by using the word "conspire" or its derivatives (such as confederate, connive, collude), or by alleging basic facts constituting the conspiracy with such precision as would enable the accused to competently enter a plea. Applied here to uphold the sufficiency of the Information charging Go.
• Liability of Private Persons under R.A. No. 3019 — Private persons may be held liable for violations of Section 3(g) of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act when they conspire with public officers, in consonance with the law's avowed policy to repress graft involving both public and private actors.
• Effect of Final Acquittal of Public Officer on Private Co-Accused — The final acquittal of a public officer charged with violating R.A. No. 3019 removes the basis for conspiracy against a private individual charged as a co-conspirator, necessitating the dismissal of the case against the latter.

• "The requirements on sufficiency of allegations are different when conspiracy is not charged as a crime in itself but only as the mode of committing the crime as in the case at bar."
• "it is enough to allege conspiracy as a mode in the commission of an offense in either of the following manner: (1) by use of the word 'conspire,' or its derivatives or synonyms, such as confederate, connive, collude, etc; or (2) by allegation of basic facts constituting the conspiracy in a manner that a person of common understanding would know what is intended, and with such precision as would enable the accused to competently enter a plea to a subsequent indictment based on the same facts."
• "The acquittal of Rivera means that there was no public officer who allegedly violated Section 3(g) of R.A. No. 3019. There being no public officer, it follows that a private individual such as herein petitioner Go could not be said to have conspired with such public officer. The basis for a finding of conspiracy against petitioner and Rivera has been removed; consequently, the case against Henry T. Go should likewise be dismissed."

• Meneses v. People — Cited to establish precedent that private persons conspiring with public officers may be held liable for violations of Section 3(g) of R.A. No. 3019.
• Balmadrid v. Sandiganbayan — Cited for the proposition that private persons may be held liable under the Anti-Graft Law when conspiring with public officers.
• Domingo v. Sandiganbayan — Cited to support the rule that private persons are not exempt from liability under R.A. No. 3019 when acting in conspiracy with public officers.
• Singian v. Sandiganbayan — Cited to establish that private persons conspiring with public officers are liable for violations of the Anti-Graft Law.
• Estrada v. Sandiganbayan — Controlling precedent on the sufficiency of allegations regarding conspiracy when charged as a mode of committing an offense rather than as a separate crime.

• Section 3(g) of Republic Act No. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act) — Prohibits public officers from entering into contracts or transactions on behalf of the government that are grossly and manifestly disadvantageous to the same; applied to determine the liability of private persons conspiring with public officers.
• Republic Act No. 3019 (General Policy Statement) — Cited for the legislative policy "to repress certain acts of public officers and private persons alike which may constitute graft or corrupt practices or which may lead thereto."

N/A (Justices Austria-Martinez, Chico-Nazario, Velasco, Jr., and Brion concurred in the result without writing separate opinions).