Canlas v. People
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Two Informations were filed before the Sandiganbayan charging Efren M. Canlas (petitioner), a private individual and representative of Hilmarc's Construction Corporation, along with public officers including former Mayor Jejomar Erwin S. Binay, Jr., with violations of Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019 (RA 3019). Criminal Case No. SB-16-CRM-0080 alleged conspiracy in awarding Hilmarc's the contract for the Phase IV construction of the Makati City Hall Parking Building amounting to P649,275,681.73 through simulated public bidding. This included allegations of making it appear Hilmarc's was the lowest calculated and responsive bidder despite the absence of public bidding, entering into a contract without approved plans and specifications and failure to post performance security, and processing/releasing payments despite deficiencies. Criminal Case No. SB-16-CRM-0084 involved a similarly worded charge for the Phase V construction amounting to P141,649,366.00. Procedural History: Petitioner filed two Motions to Quash Information, arguing that RA 3019 applies only to public officers and that the Informations did not allege his inducement of any public officer to commit a violation under Section 4 of RA 3019. The Sandiganbayan denied these motions in its Resolution dated September 25, 2017. Petitioner's subsequent Motion for Reconsideration was denied in a Resolution dated November 20, 2017. The Petition: Petitioner filed a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, assailing the Sandiganbayan's Resolutions. He reiterated his arguments that as a private individual, he can only be liable under Section 4(b) of RA 3019, and that Section 3 applies only to public officers. He argued that conspiracy does not make him a public officer and that there is no case where a private person was held liable under Section 3(e) of RA 3019 under Section 4(b). He prayed for the reversal of rulings allowing private individuals to be held liable under Section 3 of RA 3019 when acting in conspiracy with public officers, and for the issuance of a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO).
Issue(s)
Whether the Sandiganbayan committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in denying petitioner's motions to quash the Informations. Whether a private individual, acting in conspiracy with public officers, can be indicted and held liable for violations of Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019.
Ruling
The petition is dismissed. The Resolutions dated September 25, 2017 and November 20, 2017 of the Sandiganbayan Third Division are affirmed.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of whether the Sandiganbayan committed grave abuse of discretion: The Court held that the Sandiganbayan did not commit grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in denying the petitioner's motions to quash the Informations. The Sandiganbayan correctly found probable cause to indict the petitioner for violation of Section 3(e) of RA 3019, considering the allegations of conspiracy with public officers in the commission of the offense. The denial of the motions to quash was a valid exercise of the Sandiganbayan's discretion based on the facts alleged in the Informations. On the issue of whether a private individual can be held liable under Section 3(e) of RA 3019 when acting in conspiracy with public officers: The Court reiterated the well-settled rule that private individuals, when acting in conspiracy with public officers, may be indicted and held liable for offenses under Section 3 of RA 3019. This is in consonance with the policy of the anti-graft law to repress acts of both public officers and private persons constituting graft or corrupt practices. The elements of Section 3(e) of RA 3019, as reiterated, include the accused being a public officer or a private individual acting in conspiracy with such officers, acting with manifest partiality, evident bad faith, or inexcusable negligence, and causing undue injury to the government or giving unwarranted benefits to a private party. The Court cited previous rulings in Uyboco v. People, Go v. The Fifth Division, Sandiganbayan, and PCGG v. Navarra-Gutierrez, et al., which affirmed the indictment and/or conviction of private individuals for violations of Section 3 of RA 3019 when they acted in conspiracy with public officers.
Main Doctrine
Private individuals, when acting in conspiracy with public officers, may be indicted and held liable for violations of Section 3 of Republic Act No. 3019, particularly paragraph (e) thereof.