People v. Go
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The case stemmed from a previous Supreme Court decision (G.R. Nos. 155001, 155547 and 155661) that nullified various contracts awarded by the Department of Transportation and Communications (DOTC) to Philippine International Air Terminals Co., Inc. (PIATCO) for the construction of NAIA Passenger Terminal III. Subsequently, a complaint was filed against respondent Henry T. Go, then Chairman and President of PIATCO, and then DOTC Secretary Arturo Enrile, for alleged violation of Section 3(g) of R.A. 3019, for entering into a contract grossly disadvantageous to the government. Procedural History: The Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for Luzon found probable cause to indict respondent Go. Secretary Enrile was also found to have probable cause but was not indicted as he had died prior to the resolution. An Information was filed against respondent Go before the Sandiganbayan (SB). The SB issued an Order requiring the prosecution to show cause why the case should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction over the person of the accused, considering respondent is a private person and his alleged co-conspirator is deceased. The prosecution argued that the SB acquired jurisdiction through respondent's voluntary appearance, posting of bail, and filing of motions. Respondent moved to quash the Information, arguing that the operative facts do not constitute an offense under Section 3(g) of R.A. 3019 and that without a public officer as an accused, the SB has no jurisdiction over him. The SB granted the motion to quash, dismissing the case for lack of jurisdiction over the person of the accused. The Petition: The People of the Philippines filed a petition for review on certiorari assailing the SB's Resolution, raising issues of jurisdiction, the effect of the co-conspirator's death, and the application of the equal protection clause.
Issue(s)
Whether the Sandiganbayan gravely erred in quashing the Information and dismissing the case on the ground of lack of jurisdiction over the person of the respondent. Whether the Sandiganbayan gravely erred in ruling that it has no jurisdiction over the person of the respondent despite his posting bail. Whether the Sandiganbayan gravely erred in quashing the Information in complete disregard of the equal protection clause.
Ruling
The petition is GRANTED. The Resolution of the Sandiganbayan dated June 2, 2005, granting respondent's Motion to Quash, is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The Sandiganbayan is DIRECTED to proceed with deliberate dispatch in the disposition of Criminal Case No. 28090.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of jurisdiction and the effect of the co-conspirator's death: The Court held that private persons, when acting in conspiracy with public officers, may be indicted and held liable for violations of Section 3 of R.A. 3019. The death of the public officer (Secretary Enrile) does not extinguish the alleged conspiracy nor does it remove the basis of the charge against the private respondent. The death of Secretary Enrile only extinguished his criminal liability, not the crime itself or the allegation of conspiracy. The law does not require that the public officer must be indicted together with the private person; if circumstances prevent the charging of the public officer, the private person may be indicted alone. The Court reiterated the principle that in conspiracy, the act of one is the act of all, and the death of one conspirator does not prevent the conviction of the survivor(s). The legislative intent to repress graft practices by both public officers and private persons would be frustrated if the death of a public officer would bar the prosecution of a private conspirator. On the issue of jurisdiction despite the co-conspirator's death: The Court clarified that the Sandiganbayan's jurisdiction over the person of the respondent was established by his voluntary appearance, posting of bail, and filing of motions seeking affirmative relief, such as a motion for consolidation. The act of posting bail and filing such motions is tantamount to submitting to the court's jurisdiction. The respondent did not make a special appearance to question jurisdiction prior to these actions. Therefore, he waived any objection to the Sandiganbayan's jurisdiction over his person. The Sandiganbayan, as a special criminal court with exclusive jurisdiction over violations of R.A. 3019, retains jurisdiction even if one of the alleged conspirators dies, as long as the private individual has submitted to its authority. On the issue of equal protection: The Court found no violation of the equal protection clause. The distinction in treatment, where the private individual is prosecuted while the public officer is not due to death, is based on a substantial difference and serves the purpose of the law, which is to repress graft and corrupt practices by both public officers and private persons. Allowing the death of one conspirator to automatically dismiss the case against another would frustrate the State's policy against corruption. The Court emphasized that the Sandiganbayan's jurisdiction is defined by law and should not be made dependent on factors like the death of an alleged offender.
Main Doctrine
The death of a public officer, with whom a private individual is alleged to have conspired in violating Section 3(g) of R.A. 3019, does not extinguish the alleged conspiracy nor does it divest the Sandiganbayan of jurisdiction over the private individual, especially when the private individual has already submitted to the court's jurisdiction by posting bail and filing motions seeking affirmative relief.