Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 71 views

    Go vs. Sandiganbayan

    Uploaded by

    Candelaria Quezon
    1) Petitioner Henry Go, chairman of PIATCO, and Vicente Rivera, then DOTC secretary, were charged with violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act for their involvement in voided and amended concession agreements between the government and PIATCO. 2) Go argued he could not be charged as a private citizen for an offense that requires being a public officer. However, the court ruled private persons can be charged when conspiring with public officers under the anti-graft law. 3) The court upheld the finding of probable cause by the Office of the Ombudsman against Go, noting it was within the Ombudsman's function and the courts generally do not interfere

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Go vs. Sandiganbayan

    Uploaded by

    Candelaria Quezon
    71 views2 pages
    1) Petitioner Henry Go, chairman of PIATCO, and Vicente Rivera, then DOTC secretary, were charged with violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act for their involvement in voided and amended concession agreements between the government and PIATCO. 2) Go argued he could not be charged as a private citizen for an offense that requires being a public officer. However, the court ruled private persons can be charged when conspiring with public officers under the anti-graft law. 3) The court upheld the finding of probable cause by the Office of the Ombudsman against Go, noting it was within the Ombudsman's function and the courts generally do not interfere

    Original Title

    GO VS. SANDIGANBAYAN

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1) Petitioner Henry Go, chairman of PIATCO, and Vicente Rivera, then DOTC secretary, were charged with violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act for their involvement in voided and amended concession agreements between the government and PIATCO. 2) Go argued he could not be charged as a private citizen for an offense that requires being a public officer. However, the court ruled private persons can be charged when conspiring with public officers under the anti-graft law. 3) The court upheld the finding of probable cause by the Office of the Ombudsman against Go, noting it was within the Ombudsman's function and the courts generally do not interfere

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    71 views2 pages

    Go vs. Sandiganbayan

    Uploaded by

    Candelaria Quezon
    1) Petitioner Henry Go, chairman of PIATCO, and Vicente Rivera, then DOTC secretary, were charged with violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act for their involvement in voided and amended concession agreements between the government and PIATCO. 2) Go argued he could not be charged as a private citizen for an offense that requires being a public officer. However, the court ruled private persons can be charged when conspiring with public officers under the anti-graft law. 3) The court upheld the finding of probable cause by the Office of the Ombudsman against Go, noting it was within the Ombudsman's function and the courts generally do not interfere

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 2

    GO VS .

    SAN DIGANBAYAN , E T A L
    7:50 AM

    G.R. No. 172602 April 13, 2007


    HENRY T. GO vs.THE FIFTH DIVISION, SANDIGANBAYAN and THE OFFICE OF THE SPECIAL
    PROSECUTOR, OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN

    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.

    You might also like