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 Gos 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.