People v. Go

V.d — Criminal Jurisdiction of the Different Courts: Sandiganbayan

Subject Home

16px

←Previous: Uyboco v. PeoplePrevious case

Primary source ↗

Title

People v. Go

Case Decision Date

G.R. No. 168539 March 25, 2014

The doctrine has two layers. The base rule, which the Court calls "the controlling doctrine," is that private persons acting in conspiracy with public officers "may be indicted and, if found guilty, held liable" under Section 3 — the policy of the anti-graft law being to repress such acts by "public officers and private persons alike." The extension is what makes this case indispensable: joint indictment is not required. "The only thing extinguished by the death of Secretary Enrile is his criminal liability. His death did not extinguish the crime nor did it remove the basis of the charge of conspiracy between him and private respondent." Since "it is not necessary to join all alleged co-conspirators in an indictment for conspiracy," and "[t]he death of one of two or more conspirators does not prevent the conviction of the survivor," the private person may be indicted alone — and the Sandiganbayan keeps the case.

Core Doctrine

The Sandiganbayan "is a special criminal court which has exclusive original jurisdiction in all cases involving violations of R.A. 3019 committed by certain public officers, as enumerated in P.D. 1606 as amended by R.A. 8249. This includes private individuals who are charged as co-principals, accomplices or accessories with the said public officers." The private person's exposure rests on an allegation of conspiracy with a public officer — but not on that officer's continued presence in the case. Because "the only thing extinguished by the death of [the public officer] is his criminal liability," and his death "did not extinguish the crime nor … remove the basis of the charge of conspiracy," the private person "may be indicted alone." Jurisdiction, in short, is fixed by the law defining it, not by contingencies such as a co-accused's death. Separately, the case restates the rule on jurisdiction over the person: one who posts bail, moves for consolidation and litigates other matters without a special appearance to contest jurisdiction has submitted to it.

Case Digest (G.R. No. 168539)

Case DigestWeek 2 - Jurisdiction

People v. Go

G.R. No. 168539 · March 25, 2014 · En Banc

V.d — Criminal Jurisdiction of the Different Courts: Sandiganbayan

Petitioner: People of the PhilippinesRespondent: Henry T. Go

Gist

Core Doctrine

ℹ️ Assigned Topic/Subtopic

V. Criminal Jurisdiction of the Different Courts — d. Sandiganbayan Full text: https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/mar2014/gr_168539_2014.html

ℹ️ The controlling doctrine — this is the case *Uyboco* quotes

"[P]rivate 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 R.A. 3019, in consonance with the avowed policy of the anti-graft law to repress certain acts of public officers and private persons alike … This is the controlling doctrine." And the extension this case adds: "The law … does not require that such person must, in all instances, be indicted together with the public officer. If circumstances exist where the public officer may no longer be charged in court, as … where the public officer has already died, the private person may be indicted alone."

💡 The reason it matters jurisdictionally

"To rule otherwise would mean that the power of a court to decide a case would no longer be based on the law defining its jurisdiction but on other factors, such as the death of one of the alleged offenders."

Facts

On or about July 12, 1997, in Pasay City, the late Arturo Enrile, then Secretary of the DOTC, allegedly entered on the Government's behalf into the contracts with Philippine International Air Terminals Co., Inc. (PIATCO) for the NAIA IPT III — contracts alleged to be "grossly and manifestly disadvantageous to the government" — in conspiracy with Henry T. Go, then Chairman and President of PIATCO.
This Court's Decision in Agan, Jr. v. PIATCO "nullified the various contracts awarded by the Government, through the DOTC, to PIATCO," and the criminal case is "an offshoot" of it. Ma. Cecilia L. Pesayco then complained to the Ombudsman.
Secretary Enrile died before the resolution finding probable cause issued. This single fact generates the whole case.
On September 16, 2004 the Deputy Ombudsman for Luzon found probable cause to indict Go under Section 3(g). "While there was likewise a finding of probable cause against Secretary Enrile, he was no longer indicted because he died prior to the issuance of the resolution."
By Information dated January 13, 2005 Go was charged before the Sandiganbayan (Crim. Case No. 28090).
Go posted bail and filed a Motion for Consolidation, and litigated other matters. He made no special appearance to question jurisdiction over his person. Only after the Sandiganbayan itself ordered the prosecution to show cause why the case should not be dismissed for want of jurisdiction over his person did he file a Motion to Quash.
On June 2, 2005 the Third Division quashed the Information. Decided En Banc on March 25, 2014, by which time "the main case has already been pending for over nine (9) years."

Issue

"[T]he only question that needs to be settled": whether a private person may be indicted for conspiracy in violating Section 3(g) of R.A. No. 3019 even if the public officer with whom he is alleged to have conspired has died prior to the filing of the Information — and whether the Sandiganbayan retains jurisdiction over the private person alone.

Secondary issue. Whether the Sandiganbayan acquired jurisdiction over his person, he having posted bail, moved for consolidation and litigated other matters before raising the question.

Ancillary issue. Whether the case should be referred to the Regional Trial Court.

Ruling

Main issue. YES, he may be indicted alone. "It is true that by reason of Secretary Enrile's death, there is no longer any public officer with whom respondent can be charged … It does not mean, however, that the allegation of conspiracy between them can no longer be proved… The only thing extinguished by the death of Secretary Enrile is his criminal liability. His death did not extinguish the crime nor did it remove the basis of the charge of conspiracy between him and private respondent." The requirement is that the private person "must be alleged to have acted in conspiracy with a public officer. The law, however, does not require that such person must, in all instances, be indicted together with the public officer. If circumstances exist where the public officer may no longer be charged in court … the private person may be indicted alone."

On jurisdiction: the Sandiganbayan's exclusive original jurisdiction over R.A. 3019 violations by enumerated officers "includes private individuals who are charged as co-principals, accomplices or accessories." Enrile's death does not divest it — "To rule otherwise would mean that the power of a court to decide a case would no longer be based on the law defining its jurisdiction but on other factors, such as the death of one of the alleged offenders."

Secondary issue. Jurisdiction over his person was acquired: he "did not make any special appearance … prior to his posting of bail and filing his Motion for Consolidation," and his Motion to Quash "only came after" the court raised the issue.

Ancillary issue. No referral — the issues are "mere incidents in the main case," which has been "pending for over nine (9) years," and a referral "would further delay the resolution … and it would, by no means, promote respondent's right to a speedy trial."

"WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The Resolution of the Sandiganbayan dated June 2, 2005, granting respondent's Motion to Quash, is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The Sandiganbayan is forthwith DIRECTED to proceed with deliberate dispatch in the disposition of Criminal Case No. 28090. SO ORDERED."

Ratio

The elements of Section 3(g) frame the argument: "(1) that the accused is a public officer; (2) that he entered into a contract or transaction on behalf of the government; and (3) that such contract or transaction is grossly and manifestly disadvantageous to the government."
The base rule is settled: "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 R.A. 3019, in consonance with the avowed policy of the anti-graft law to repress certain acts of public officers and private persons alike … This is the controlling doctrine."
The Court then separates what death extinguishes from what it does not — the ratio — and confirms it from the record: "the Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for Luzon found probable cause to indict Secretary Enrile … Were it not for his death, he should have been charged."
The pleading requirement is distinguished from a joinder requirement.
Conspiracy doctrine supplies the support: "it is not necessary to join all alleged co-conspirators … any act done by any of them pursuant to the agreement is, in contemplation of law, the act of each of them … it makes no difference whether the actual actor is alive or dead … The death of one of two or more conspirators does not prevent the conviction of the survivor." And: "So long as the acquittal or death of a co-conspirator does not remove the bases of a charge for conspiracy, one defendant may be found guilty."
The allegations are hypothetically admitted on a motion to quash, and "in conspiracy, the act of one is the act of all."
Policy closes the substantive point: the legislative intent to repress graft by "public officers and private persons alike" "would be frustrated if the death of a public officer would bar the prosecution of the private conspirator."
On the person, the general-appearance rule applies: where "the appearance is for any other purpose, the defendant is deemed to have submitted himself to the jurisdiction of the court."

Doctrine

The controlling doctrine on private conspirators: "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 R.A. 3019."
Joint indictment is not required — the private person "must be alleged to have acted in conspiracy," but the law "does not require that such person must, in all instances, be indicted together with the public officer," and where the officer may no longer be charged "the private person may be indicted alone."
What death extinguishes is "his criminal liability"; it "did not extinguish the crime nor did it remove the basis of the charge of conspiracy."
Jurisdiction is defined by law, not by contingency. The Sandiganbayan's reach "includes private individuals who are charged as co-principals, accomplices or accessories." And posting bail, moving for consolidation and litigating other matters without a special appearance submits the accused.

Limits.

The conspiracy must still be alleged and still be proved — this case decides only that the public officer's absence from the docket is no bar; strip the conspiracy allegation and the private person has no exposure under Section 3 at all, the first element being a public officer.
Enrile was found to have probable cause against him, and the Court leans on that — the holding is not that a private person may be charged on a bare assertion that some unnamed official conspired with him.
Distinguish the two jurisdictional questions: over the subject matter, which survives the co-accused's death because it is conferred by statute; and over the person, acquired here by Go's own general appearance — his Motion to Quash came after he had posted bail and sought consolidation, so no special appearance was available to him.
And the speedy-disposition point cuts unusually: nine years of delay was a reason to keep the case rather than dismiss it — fact-specific balancing, not a general rule.

Full Digest — Recitation Format

Gist

Classification: DIRECT. Henry T. Go, Chairman and President of PIATCO — a private individual — was charged before the Sandiganbayan with violating Section 3(g) of R.A. No. 3019 for conspiring with then DOTC Secretary Arturo Enrile in entering into the NAIA IPT III contracts that this Court had nullified in Agan, Jr. v. PIATCO. Secretary Enrile died before the resolution finding probable cause issued, so he was never indicted. On that footing the Sandiganbayan quashed the Information against Go: with no public officer charged, it reasoned, the case against the private person could not stand. Sitting En Banc, the Court reversed and directed the Sandiganbayan to proceed.

Facts

On or about July 12, 1997, or sometime prior or subsequent thereto, in Pasay City, the late Arturo Enrile, then Secretary of the Department of Transportation and Communications, allegedly entered on behalf of the Government into the contracts with Philippine International Air Terminals Co., Inc. (PIATCO) for the construction, operation and maintenance of the Ninoy Aquino International Airport International Passenger Terminal III (NAIA IPT III) — contracts alleged to be "grossly and manifestly disadvantageous to the government" — in conspiracy with Henry T. Go, then Chairman and President of PIATCO.
This Court's Decision in Agan, Jr. v. Philippine International Air Terminals Co., Inc. nullified the various contracts awarded by the Government, through the DOTC, to PIATCO. The criminal case is expressly described as "an offshoot" of that Decision.
Subsequent to that Decision, "a certain Ma. Cecilia L. Pesayco filed a complaint with the Office of the Ombudsman against several individuals for alleged violation of R.A. 3019," among them Go.
Secretary Enrile died prior to the issuance of the resolution finding probable cause. This single fact generates the whole case.
On September 16, 2004, the Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for Luzon found probable cause to indict Go for violation of Section 3(g). "While there was likewise a finding of probable cause against Secretary Enrile, he was no longer indicted because he died prior to the issuance of the resolution."
In an Information dated January 13, 2005, Go was charged before the Sandiganbayan, docketed as Criminal Case No. 28090.
Go posted bail and filed a Motion for Consolidation, and litigated other matters before the Sandiganbayan. He made no special appearance to question jurisdiction over his person — the fact that later defeats that branch of his argument.
The Sandiganbayan issued an Order requiring the prosecution to show cause why the case should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction over his person. Only then did Go file his Motion to Quash.
On June 2, 2005, the Third Division of the Sandiganbayan issued a Resolution quashing the Information.
The People filed the present petition for review on certiorari.
On March 25, 2014, the Court En Banc promulgated this Decision through Justice Peralta, granting the petition. By then "the main case has already been pending for over nine (9) years."

Arguments of the Parties

A. Petitioner (People of the Philippines).

The People's position was that the death of the public officer does not dissolve the conspiracy or the charge built on it, and that the anti-graft law's "avowed policy of the State and the legislative intent to repress 'acts of public officers and private persons alike, which constitute graft or corrupt practices'" "would be frustrated if the death of a public officer would bar" prosecution of the private conspirator. They pressed that the allegations of the Information — conspiracy with Secretary Enrile — are "deemed hypothetically admitted" in a motion to quash, and that "in conspiracy, the act of one is the act of all," so that "the criminal liability incurred by a co-conspirator is also incurred by the other co-conspirators."

B. Respondent (Henry T. Go).

Go "contend[ed] that by reason of the death of Secretary Enrile, there is no public officer who was charged in the Information and, as such, prosecution against respondent may not prosper." The argument is structurally clean: Section 3(g) requires as its first element "that the accused is a public officer"; Go is not one; his exposure is derivative of a conspiracy with one; and with that officer gone from the case there is no public officer, hence no offence he can be made to answer for and no basis for the Sandiganbayan — a court whose jurisdiction is defined by reference to covered public officers — to try him. He also resisted the Sandiganbayan's jurisdiction over his person.

C. Common Ground.

It was not disputed that Go is a private individual, that Enrile was a public officer covered by the Sandiganbayan's jurisdiction, or that Enrile died before the probable-cause resolution issued and was therefore never indicted. Nor was it disputed that the Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for Luzon had in fact found probable cause against Enrile for infringement of Sections 3(e) and (g) — the Court notes that "[w]ere it not for his death, he should have been charged." Neither was it disputed that Go had posted bail and moved for consolidation before ever raising jurisdiction.

Issue

A. Main Issue (Topic/Subtopic-Centered).

Framed by the Court as "[t]he only question that needs to be settled": whether a private person may be indicted for conspiracy in violating Section 3(g) of R.A. No. 3019 even if the public officer with whom he is alleged to have conspired has died prior to the filing of the Information — and, correlatively, whether the Sandiganbayan retains jurisdiction over the case and over the private person alone.

B. Secondary Issues.

Whether the Sandiganbayan acquired jurisdiction over the person of the respondent, given that he posted bail, moved for consolidation and litigated other matters before raising the question.

C. Ancillary/Incidental Issues.

Whether the case should be referred to the Regional Trial Court, and the bearing of the respondent's right to a speedy disposition on that question.

Ruling

Main Issue: YES, he may be indicted alone. "The Court is not persuaded" by the contrary contention. "It is true that by reason of Secretary Enrile's death, there is no longer any public officer with whom respondent can be charged … It does not mean, however, that the allegation of conspiracy between them can no longer be proved or that their alleged conspiracy is already expunged. The only thing extinguished by the death of Secretary Enrile is his criminal liability. His death did not extinguish the crime nor did it remove the basis of the charge of conspiracy between him and private respondent." The requirement "is that such private person must be alleged to have acted in conspiracy with a public officer. The law, however, does not require that such person must, in all instances, be indicted together with the public officer. If circumstances exist where the public officer may no longer be charged in court, as in the present case where the public officer has already died, the private person may be indicted alone."

On jurisdiction: the Sandiganbayan "is a special criminal court which has exclusive original jurisdiction in all cases involving violations of R.A. 3019 committed by certain public officers, as enumerated in P.D. 1606 as amended by R.A. 8249. This includes private individuals who are charged as co-principals, accomplices or accessories with the said public officers." Ideally both "should have been charged before and tried jointly," but the death of Enrile "does not follow that the SB is already divested of its jurisdiction … To rule otherwise would mean that the power of a court to decide a case would no longer be based on the law defining its jurisdiction but on other factors, such as the death of one of the alleged offenders."

Secondary Issue: jurisdiction over his person was acquired. "[R]espondent did not make any special appearance to question the jurisdiction of the SB over his person prior to his posting of bail and filing his Motion for Consolidation. In fact, his Motion to Quash … only came after the SB issued an Order requiring the prosecution to show cause why the case should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction over his person." Where "the appearance is for any other purpose, the defendant is deemed to have submitted himself to the jurisdiction of the court."

Ancillary Issue: no referral. "[T]he issues raised … involve matters which are mere incidents in the main case and the main case has already been pending for over nine (9) years. Thus, a referral of the case to the Regional Trial Court would further delay the resolution of the main case and it would, by no means, promote respondent's right to a speedy trial and a speedy disposition of his case."

Dispositive portion (verbatim):

"WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The Resolution of the Sandiganbayan dated June 2, 2005, granting respondent's Motion to Quash, is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The Sandiganbayan is forthwith DIRECTED to proceed with deliberate dispatch in the disposition of Criminal Case No. 28090.

SO ORDERED."

Ratio

The Court sets out the elements, which frame the respondent's argument. Under Section 3(g) — "Entering, on behalf of the Government, into any contract or transaction manifestly and grossly disadvantageous to the same, whether or not the public officer profited or will profit thereby" — the elements are "(1) that the accused is a public officer; (2) that he entered into a contract or transaction on behalf of the government; and (3) that such contract or transaction is grossly and manifestly disadvantageous to the government."
The base rule is stated as settled at the outset. "At the outset, it bears to reiterate the settled rule that 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 R.A. 3019, 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 … This is the controlling doctrine."
The narrow question is then isolated. "The only question that needs to be settled … is whether herein respondent, a private person, may be indicted for conspiracy in violating Section 3(g) … even if the public officer, with whom he was alleged to have conspired, has died prior to the filing of the Information."
The Court separates what death extinguishes from what it does not — the ratio. "The only thing extinguished by the death of Secretary Enrile is his criminal liability. His death did not extinguish the crime nor did it remove the basis of the charge of conspiracy between him and private respondent. Stated differently, the death of Secretary Enrile does not mean that there was no public officer who allegedly violated Section 3(g)." Confirming this, "the Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for Luzon found probable cause to indict Secretary Enrile for infringement of Sections 3(e) and (g) … Were it not for his death, he should have been charged."
The pleading requirement is distinguished from a joinder requirement. "The requirement before a private person may be indicted … is that such private person must be alleged to have acted in conspiracy with a public officer. The law, however, does not require that such person must, in all instances, be indicted together with the public officer. If circumstances exist where the public officer may no longer be charged in court, as in the present case where the public officer has already died, the private person may be indicted alone."
Conspiracy doctrine supplies the support. "[I]t is not necessary to join all alleged co-conspirators in an indictment for conspiracy. If two or more persons enter into a conspiracy, any act done by any of them pursuant to the agreement is, in contemplation of law, the act of each of them and they are jointly responsible therefor … it makes no difference whether the actual actor is alive or dead, sane or insane at the time of trial. The death of one of two or more conspirators does not prevent the conviction of the survivor or survivors." And quoting authority: "[a] conspiracy is in its nature a joint offense. One person cannot conspire alone … Yet, it does not follow that one person cannot be convicted of conspiracy. So long as the acquittal or death of a co-conspirator does not remove the bases of a charge for conspiracy, one defendant may be found guilty of the offense."
The allegations are hypothetically admitted on a motion to quash. "[A]s alleged in the Information filed against respondent, which is deemed hypothetically admitted in the latter's Motion to Quash, he … conspired with Secretary Enrile in violating Section 3(g) … and in conspiracy, the act of one is the act of all."
Policy is invoked to close the substantive point. "[T]he avowed policy of the State and the legislative intent to repress 'acts of public officers and private persons alike, which constitute graft or corrupt practices,' would be frustrated if the death of a public officer would bar the prosecution of the private conspirator.
On jurisdiction over the person, the general-appearance rule is applied. Where "the appearance is for any other purpose, the defendant is deemed to have submitted himself to the jurisdiction of the court. Such an appearance gives the court jurisdiction over the person." Applied: respondent "did not make any special appearance to question the jurisdiction of the SB over his person prior to his posting of bail and filing his Motion for Consolidation," and his Motion to Quash "only came after" the court itself raised the issue.
The recapitulation ties jurisdiction to the statute rather than to events. The Sandiganbayan "is a special criminal court which has exclusive original jurisdiction in all cases involving violations of R.A. 3019 committed by certain public officers, as enumerated in P.D. 1606 as amended by R.A. 8249. This includes private individuals who are charged as co-principals, accomplices or accessories with the said public officers." "To rule otherwise would mean that the power of a court to decide a case would no longer be based on the law defining its jurisdiction but on other factors, such as the death of one of the alleged offenders."

Doctrine

B. Doctrines/Rules/Principles.

The controlling doctrine on private conspirators. "[P]rivate 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 R.A. 3019."

Joint indictment is not required. The private person "must be alleged to have acted in conspiracy with a public officer," but "the law … does not require that such person must, in all instances, be indicted together with the public officer"; where the officer "may no longer be charged in court … the private person may be indicted alone."

What death extinguishes. "The only thing extinguished by the death of [the public officer] is his criminal liability"; it "did not extinguish the crime nor did it remove the basis of the charge of conspiracy." "The death of one of two or more conspirators does not prevent the conviction of the survivor or survivors."

Jurisdiction is defined by law, not by contingency. Otherwise "the power of a court to decide a case would no longer be based on the law defining its jurisdiction but on other factors, such as the death of one of the alleged offenders."

Sandiganbayan reach over private individuals. Its exclusive original jurisdiction over R.A. 3019 violations by enumerated public officers "includes private individuals who are charged as co-principals, accomplices or accessories with the said public officers."

Jurisdiction over the person by general appearance. Posting bail, moving for consolidation and litigating other matters without a special appearance submits the accused to the court's jurisdiction.

C. Distinctions/Limitations/Qualifications.

The conspiracy must still be alleged, and it must still be proved. This case decides only that the public officer's absence from the docket is no bar. Strip the conspiracy allegation from the Information and the private person has no exposure under Section 3 at all — the first element is a public officer.
Enrile was found to have probable cause against him, and the Court leans on that: "Were it not for his death, he should have been charged." The holding is not that a private person may be charged on a bare assertion that some unnamed official conspired with him.
Distinguish the two jurisdictional questions the case answers. Jurisdiction over the subject matter survives the co-accused's death because it is conferred by statute; jurisdiction over the person was acquired by Go's own general appearance. The second is the Miranda vs. Tuliao / Villa Gomez rule applied — note that his Motion to Quash came after he had already posted bail and sought consolidation, so no special appearance was available to him.
The speedy-disposition point cuts unusually. The Court declined to refer the case to the RTC partly because nine years had passed — using delay as a reason to keep the case rather than to dismiss it. That is a fact-specific balancing, not a general rule.
Statutory currency. The jurisdictional framework is P.D. No. 1606 as amended by R.A. No. 8249; R.A. No. 10660 (2015) later amended the allocation. The private-conspirator doctrine is unaffected.
Several Justices took no part — the Chief Justice as "former counsel in related cases" — which is a reminder of how widely the NAIA IPT III litigation reached.

D. Topic/Subtopic Integration (Mandatory).

Consistent with the DIRECT classification, the Court states the private-conspirator doctrine as the controlling rule, extends it to the case of a deceased public officer, and grounds the extension in the proposition that jurisdiction follows the law defining it rather than the fortunes of individual accused. For this subtopic it is the primary authority on the private co-accused branch, and the one to lead with.

Within the week's cluster, People v. Go is the case that Uyboco vs. People quotes for "the controlling doctrine" — read the pair together, with Go supplying the rule and Uyboco an application in which the private conspirator was actually convicted. Geduspan vs. Sandiganbayan touches the same branch in its closing line as to the private co-accused Farahmand, and Barriga vs. Sandiganbayan supplies the substantive counterpart: a non-accountable officer "or even a private individual" is liable for malversation if he conspires with an accountable one. Against the two limbs of Section 4 — enumerated position (Inding, Geduspan) and office-relation (Sanchez, Cunanan, Alarilla, Esteban) — the private-conspirator cases add the practical rule that the enquiry is run on the public officer, and the private person follows him into the same court.

Separate Opinions

None reported. The Decision was penned by Justice Peralta for the Court sitting En Banc. Chief Justice Sereno took no part as "former counsel in related cases," and Justice Del Castillo likewise took no part.

Cited Laws & Provisions

Every statute, rule, and issuance the decision turns on — the text as written, and the work it does in this case.

Special Law

Section 3, R.A. No. 3019

Corrupt practices of public officers

Republic Act No. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act)

In addition to acts or omissions of public officers already penalized by existing law, the following shall constitute corrupt practices of any public officer and are hereby declared to be unlawful:

(a) Persuading, inducing or influencing another public officer to perform an act constituting a violation of rules and regulations duly promulgated by competent authority or an offense in connection with the official duties of the latter, or allowing himself to be persuaded, induced, or influenced to commit such violation or offense.

(b) Directly or indirectly requesting or receiving any gift, present, share, percentage, or benefit, for himself or for any other person, in connection with any contract or transaction between the Government and any other part, wherein the public officer in his official capacity has to intervene under the law.

(c) Directly or indirectly requesting or receiving any gift, present or other pecuniary or material benefit, for himself or for another, from any person for whom the public officer, in any manner or capacity, has secured or obtained, or will secure or obtain, any Government permit or license, in consideration for the help given or to be given, without prejudice to Section thirteen of this Act.

(d) Accepting or having any member of his family accept employment in a private enterprise which has pending official business with him during the pendency thereof or within one year after its termination.

(e) Causing any undue injury to any party, including the Government, or giving any private party any unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference in the discharge of his official administrative or judicial functions through manifest partiality, evident bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence. This provision shall apply to officers and employees of offices or government corporations charged with the grant of licenses or permits or other concessions.

(f) Neglecting or refusing, after due demand or request, without sufficient justification, to act within a reasonable time on any matter pending before him for the purpose of obtaining, directly or indirectly, from any person interested in the matter some pecuniary or material benefit or advantage, or for the purpose of favoring his own interest or giving undue advantage in favor of or discriminating against any other interested party.

(g) Entering, on behalf of the Government, into any contract or transaction manifestly and grossly disadvantageous to the same, whether or not the public officer profited or will profit thereby.

(h) Director or indirectly having financing or pecuniary interest in any business, contract or transaction in connection with which he intervenes or takes part in his official capacity, or in which he is prohibited by the Constitution or by any law from having any interest.

(i) Directly or indirectly becoming interested, for personal gain, or having a material interest in any transaction or act requiring the approval of a board, panel or group of which he is a member, and which exercises discretion in such approval, even if he votes against the same or does not participate in the action of the board, committee, panel or group.

Interest for personal gain shall be presumed against those public officers responsible for the approval of manifestly unlawful, inequitable, or irregular transaction or acts by the board, panel or group to which they belong.

(j) Knowingly approving or granting any license, permit, privilege or benefit in favor of any person not qualified for or not legally entitled to such license, permit, privilege or advantage, or of a mere representative or dummy of one who is not so qualified or entitled.

(k) Divulging valuable information of a confidential character, acquired by his office or by him on account of his official position to unauthorized persons, or releasing such information in advance of its authorized release date.

The person giving the gift, present, share, percentage or benefit referred to in subparagraphs (b) and (c); or offering or giving to the public officer the employment mentioned in subparagraph (d); or urging the divulging or untimely release of the confidential information referred to in subparagraph (k) of this section shall, together with the offending public officer, be punished under Section nine of this Act and shall be permanently or temporarily disqualified in the discretion of the Court, from transacting business in any form with the Government.

LawPhil posts the 1960 text. R.A. No. 3019 has been amended by R.A. No. 3047, P.D. No. 77 and B.P. Blg. 195 (1981), which raised the penalties in Section 9 and rewrote Sections 8, 11 and 13 — the prescriptive period in Section 11 went from ten years to fifteen. Check the date of the decision against the amendment.

Why it is cited here

The base rule the Court calls "the controlling doctrine."

Section 3 defines the "corrupt practices of public officers," and its first element requires a public officer. Yet private persons acting in conspiracy with public officers "may be indicted and, if found guilty, held liable."

The reason is the statute's purpose: the policy of the anti-graft law is to repress such acts by "public officers and private persons alike." A law aimed at corruption that reached only one side of every corrupt bargain would be self-defeating, since graft characteristically requires a private counterparty.

Note how conspiracy does the work. The private person does not become a public officer; he becomes liable for the offense of a public officer, because in conspiracy the act of one is the act of all.

Section 4(a) of P.D. 1606 then carries the case to the Sandiganbayan, since it covers violations of this Act where one of the accused occupies an enumerated position.

DOLE Issuance

Section 4, P.D. No. 1606, as amended by R.A. No. 10660

Jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan — operative text

Presidential Decree No. 1606, Section 4, as last amended by Republic Act No. 10660 (16 April 2015), Section 2

The Sandiganbayan shall exercise exclusive original jurisdiction in all cases involving:

a. Violations of Republic Act No. 3019, as amended, otherwise known as the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, Republic Act No. 1379, and Chapter II, Section 2, Title VII, Book II of the Revised Penal Code, where one or more of the accused are officials occupying the following positions in the government, whether in a permanent, acting or interim capacity, at the time of the commission of the offense:

(1) Officials of the executive branch occupying the positions of regional director and higher, otherwise classified as Grade ’27’ and higher, of the Compensation and Position Classification Act of 1989 (Republic Act No. 6758), specifically including:

(a) Provincial governors, vice-governors, members of the sangguniang panlalawigan, and provincial treasurers, assessors, engineers, and other provincial department heads:

(b) City mayors, vice-mayors, members of the sangguniang panlungsod, city treasurers, assessors, engineers, and other city department heads;

(d) Philippine army and air force colonels, naval captains, and all officers of higher rank;

(e) Officers of the Philippine National Police while occupying the position of provincial director and those holding the rank of senior superintendent and higher;

(f) City and provincial prosecutors and their assistants, and officials and prosecutors in the Office of the Ombudsman and special prosecutor;

(g) Presidents, directors or trustees, or managers of government-owned or controlled corporations, state universities or educational institutions or foundations.

(2) Members of Congress and officials thereof classified as Grade ’27’ and higher under the Compensation and Position Classification Act of 1989;

(3) Members of the judiciary without prejudice to the provisions of the Constitution;

(4) Chairmen and members of the Constitutional Commissions, without prejudice to the provisions of the Constitution; and

(5) All other national and local officials classified as Grade ’27’ and higher under the Compensation and Position Classification Act of 1989.

b. Other offenses or felonies whether simple or complexed with other crimes committed by the public officials and employees mentioned in subsection a. of this section in relation to their office.

c. Civil and criminal cases filed pursuant to and in connection with Executive Order Nos. 1, 2, 14 and 14-A, issued in 1986.

Provided, That the Regional Trial Court shall have exclusive original jurisdiction where the information: (a) does not allege any damage to the government or any bribery; or (b) alleges damage to the government or bribery arising from the same or closely related transactions or acts in an amount not exceeding One million pesos (P1,000,000.00).

Subject to the rules promulgated by the Supreme Court, the cases falling under the jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Court under this section shall be tried in a judicial region other than where the official holds office.

In cases where none of the accused are occupying positions corresponding to Salary Grade ’27’ or higher, as prescribed in the said Republic Act No. 6758, or military and PNP officers mentioned above, exclusive original jurisdiction thereof shall be vested in the proper regional trial court, metropolitan trial court, municipal trial court, and municipal circuit trial court, as the case may be, pursuant to their respective jurisdictions as provided in Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, as amended.

The Sandiganbayan shall exercise exclusive appellate jurisdiction over final judgments, resolutions or orders of regional trial courts whether in the exercise of their own original jurisdiction or of their appellate jurisdiction as herein provided.

The Sandiganbayan shall have exclusive original jurisdiction over petitions for the issuance of the writs of mandamus, prohibition, certiorari, habeas corpus, injunctions, and other ancillary writs and processes in aid of its appellate jurisdiction and over petitions of similar nature, including quo warranto, arising or that may arise in cases filed or which may be filed under Executive Order Nos. 1, 2, 14 and 14-A, issued in 1986: Provided, That the jurisdiction over these petitions shall not be exclusive of the Supreme Court.

The procedure prescribed in Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, as well as the implementing rules that the Supreme Court has promulgated and may hereafter promulgate, relative to appeals/petitions for review to the Court of Appeals, shall apply to appeals and petitions for review filed with the Sandiganbayan. In all cases elevated to the Sandiganbayan and from the Sandiganbayan to the Supreme Court, the Office of the Ombudsman, through its special prosecutor, shall represent the People of the Philippines, except in cases filed pursuant to Executive Order Nos. 1, 2, 14 and 14-A, issued in 1986.

In case private individuals are charged as co-principals, accomplices or accessories with the public officers or employees, including those employed in government-owned or controlled corporations, they shall be tried jointly with said public officers and employees in the proper courts which shall exercise exclusive jurisdiction over them.

Any provisions of law or Rules of Court to the contrary notwithstanding, the criminal action and the corresponding civil action for the recovery of civil liability shall at all times be simultaneously instituted with, and jointly determined in, the same proceeding by the Sandiganbayan or the appropriate courts, the filing of the criminal action being deemed to necessarily carry with it the filing of the civil action, and no right to reserve the filing of such civil action separately from the criminal action shall be recognized: Provided, however, That where the civil action had heretofore been filed separately but judgment therein has not yet been rendered, and the criminal case is hereafter filed with the Sandiganbayan or the appropriate court, said civil action shall be transferred to the Sandiganbayan or the appropriate court, as the case may be, for consolidation and joint determination with the criminal action, otherwise the separate civil action shall be deemed abandoned.

This is the operative text. LawPhil's P.D. No. 1606 page carries the original 1978 Section 4, which is a different provision entirely — see pd-1606-sec-4 and do not cite it as current.

Section 4 has been replaced four times, and which version governs depends on when the offense was committed and when the case was filed, so the sequence is worth knowing:

P.D. No. 1861 (1983) first tied Sandiganbayan jurisdiction to the penalty imposable. R.A. No. 7975 (1995) introduced the Salary Grade 27 threshold and the enumerated positions. R.A. No. 8249 (1997) removed the "principal accused" qualifier and restated the enumeration. R.A. No. 10660 (2015) added the proviso quoted above giving the Regional Trial Court exclusive original jurisdiction where the information alleges no damage to the government or bribery, or where the damage alleged does not exceed one million pesos.

Three traps in applying it. The Grade 27 threshold is not the whole test — the enumerated positions in subsection a(1) confer jurisdiction regardless of actual salary grade, which is how a municipal mayor or a state university president comes within it. The offense must be "in relation to office" under subsection b, a requirement the case law has read narrowly. And jurisdiction is determined by the allegations in the information, not by what the evidence later shows.

Why it is cited here

The extension that makes this case indispensable: joint indictment is not required.

Section 4(a) covers cases "where one or more of the accused are officials occupying the following positions" — the same "one or more" language that produces the one-accused rule in Barriga.

The obstacle here was that the public officer, Secretary Enrile, had died. The Court's answer: "The only thing extinguished by the death of Secretary Enrile is his criminal liability. His death did not extinguish the crime nor did it remove the basis of the charge of conspiracy between him and private respondent."

So the private person may be prosecuted alone. The conspiracy is a fact about what happened, and it does not evaporate because one conspirator can no longer be tried.

Read with Barriga, the two give the full picture of how co-accused affect this court's jurisdiction: a subordinate is drawn in by a senior co-accused, and a private person stays in even when the public officer drops out.

Special Law

Article 89, Revised Penal Code

How criminal liability is totally extinguished

Revised Penal Code (Act No. 3815)

Criminal liability is totally extinguished:

1. By the death of the convict, as to the personal penalties; and as to pecuniary penalties, liability therefor is extinguished only when the death of the offender occurs before final judgment.

2. By service of the sentence.

3. By amnesty, which completely extinguishes the penalty and all its effects.

4. By absolute pardon.

5. By prescription of the crime.

6. By prescription of the penalty.

7. By the marriage of the offended woman, as provided in article 344 of this Code.

Why it is cited here

Exactly what death extinguishes, and the reason it does not reach the conspiracy.

"Criminal liability is totally extinguished: 1. By the death of the convict, as to the personal penalties; and as to pecuniary penalties, liability therefor is extinguished only when the death of the offender occurs before final judgment."

Read the words: what is extinguished is the convict's liability, a personal consequence. The article says nothing about the offense, and nothing about anyone else.

That is the textual basis for the Court's distinction between the criminal liability of Enrile, which is extinguished, and the crime and the basis of the charge of conspiracy, which are untouched.

The practical upshot for prosecutors is worth stating plainly: the death of the principal public officer does not abate the case against his private co-conspirator. It removes one accused, not the charge.

Related notes:

Uyboco v. People — quotes this case for the controlling doctrine and applies it to a convicted private conspirator.
Barriga v. Sandiganbayan — the substantive counterpart: a private individual conspiring with an accountable officer is liable for malversation.
Geduspan v. Sandiganbayan — jurisdiction extends to a private individual charged together with a covered public officer.
Miranda v. Tuliao — the special-appearance rule this case applies on jurisdiction over the person.
Republic Act No. 3019 — the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.

Source: https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/mar2014/gr_168539_2014.html

Cited laws & provisions

Section 3, R.A. No. 3019

Special Law

Corrupt practices of public officers

Republic Act No. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act)

In addition to acts or omissions of public officers already penalized by existing law, the following shall constitute corrupt practices of any public officer and are hereby declared to be unlawful:

(g) Entering, on behalf of the Government, into any contract or transaction manifestly and grossly disadvantageous to the same, whether or not the public officer profited or will profit thereby.

Why it is cited here

The base rule the Court calls "the controlling doctrine."

Section 4(a) of P.D. 1606 then carries the case to the Sandiganbayan, since it covers violations of this Act where one of the accused occupies an enumerated position.

Full entry below ↓