GR 172602; (April, 2007) (Digest)
G.R. No. 172602 ; April 13, 2007
HENRY T. GO, Petitioner, vs. THE FIFTH DIVISION, SANDIGANBAYAN and THE OFFICE OF THE SPECIAL PROSECUTOR, OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, Respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Henry T. Go, Chairman and President of Philippine International Air Terminals Co., Inc. (PIATCO), was charged before the Sandiganbayan with violation of Section 3(g) of Republic Act No. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act) in an Information dated January 13, 2005. The charge stemmed from the execution of the Amended and Restated Concession Agreement (ARCA) for the NAIA IPT III project, which the Supreme Court had previously declared null and void in Agan, Jr. v. PIATCO. The Information alleged that Go conspired with then DOTC Secretary Vicente C. Rivera, Jr. in entering into the agreement, which contained provisions manifestly and grossly disadvantageous to the government.
Go filed a Motion to Quash the Information, arguing that he, as a private individual, cannot be validly charged under Section 3(g) of R.A. 3019, as this provision exclusively applies to public officers. The Sandiganbayan denied his motion and subsequent motion for reconsideration, prompting Go to file this petition for certiorari.
ISSUE
Whether the Sandiganbayan committed grave abuse of discretion in denying petitioner Henry T. Go’s Motion to Quash the Information charging him with violation of Section 3(g) of R.A. 3019.
RULING
Yes, the Sandiganbayan committed grave abuse of discretion. The Supreme Court granted the petition and set aside the assailed Sandiganbayan resolutions. The legal logic is clear: Section 3(g) of R.A. 3019 explicitly penalizes only public officers who enter into contracts manifestly and grossly disadvantageous to the government. Henry T. Go is a private individual. While a private person may be held liable for conspiring with a public officer, the proper charge should be under Section 4(b) of R.A. 3019 in relation to Section 3(g), which specifically makes it unlawful for any person to induce or cause a public official to commit an offense under Section 3.
The Information charged Go directly under Section 3(g), a provision that by its plain text does not encompass private individuals. This failure to allege the correct statutory provision violates Go’s constitutional right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him. An information must charge the offense with sufficient specificity, and lumping a private individual under a provision applicable only to public officers renders the accusatory pleading fatally defective. Consequently, the Sandiganbayan’s denial of the Motion to Quash, which would force Go to trial under an invalid information, constituted grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.