top of page

People of the Philippines vs. Henry T. Go

  • Writer: Amator Iustitiae
    Amator Iustitiae
  • Jan 2, 2022
  • 2 min read

G.R. No. 168539, March 25, 2014; per Peralta, J.



Facts


An information was filed against Henry Go for alleged violation of entering into a contract which is grossly and manifestly disadvantageous to the government and for having supposedly conspired with then DOTC Secretary Arturo Enrile.

Henry Go filed a Motion to Quash the Information filed against him on the ground that the operative facts adduced therein do not constitute an offense under Section 3(g) of R.A. 3019. Respondent, citing the show cause order of the SB, also contended that, independently of the deceased Secretary Enrile, the public officer with whom he was alleged to have conspired, respondent, who is not a public officer nor was capacitated by any official authority as a government agent, may not be prosecuted for violation of Section 3(g) of R.A. 3019.


Issue


Whether or not the Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over a private person who was alleged to have conspired with a public official whose salary grade is 27 and that public official has died prior to the filing of the information


Ruling


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.


In the instant case, respondent is being charged for violation of Section 3(g) of R.A. 3019, in conspiracy with then Secretary Enrile. Ideally, under the law, both respondent and Secretary Enrile should have been charged before and tried jointly by the Sandiganbayan. However, by reason of the death of the latter, this can no longer be done. Nonetheless, for reasons already discussed, it does not follow that the Sandiganbayan is already divested of its jurisdiction over the person of its jurisdiction over the person of and the case involving herein respondent.

Recent Posts

See All
Jona Bumatay vs. Lolita Bumatay

G.R. No. 191320, April 25, 2017; per Caguioa, J. Facts Lolita allegedly married a certain Amado Rosete (Amado) on January 30,1968, when...

 
 
 

Comments


Post: Blog2_Post
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn

©2022 by Lover of Justice. Proudly created with Wix.com

bottom of page