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.
TRIESTE V SANDIGANBAYAN

FACTS:

Trieste was the mayor of Numancia, Aklan. In 1980, during his term, the Municipality of
Numancia purchased construction materials from Trigen Agro-Industrial Development
Corporation. Trieste was allegedly the president of said corporation. Trieste was then sued for
allegedly violating the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act particularly for willfully and
unlawfully having financial or pecuniary interest in a business, contract or transaction in
connection with which said accused intervened or took part in his official capacity and in which
he is prohibited by law from having any interest.

ISSUE: W/N Trieste Sr. has intervened in the transaction thus liable under RA 3019?

RULING:

No. What is contemplated in Section 3(h) of the anti-graft law is the actual intervention in the
transaction in which one has financial or pecuniary interest in order that liability may attach.
(Opinion No. 306, Series 1961 and Opinion No. 94, Series 1972 of the Secretary of Justice). The
official need not dispose his shares in the corporation as long as he does not do anything for the
firm in its contract with the office. For the law aims to prevent the don-tenant use of influence,
authority and power (Deliberation on Senate Bill 293, May 6, 1959, Congressional Record, Vol.
11, page 603).

There is absolutely no evidence that petitioner had, in his capacity as Mayor, used his influence,
power, and authority in having the transactions given to Trigen. He didn't ask anyone-neither
Treasurer Vega nor Secretary Maravilla for that matter, to get the construction materials from
Trigen.

Trigen did not gain any undue advantage in the transaction