26. Go vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No.

172602, April 13, 2007

FACTS: 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.