Scribd
Upload
5 views1 page

Henry Go VS Sandiganbayan

The case involves Henry Go's petition for certiorari regarding charges of conspiracy with former DOTC secretary Rivera under the graft and corrupt practices act. The Supreme Court ruled that private individuals can be held liable for conspiring with public officers, but after Rivera's acquittal, the basis for Go's liability was removed, resulting in the dismissal of his case. Ultimately, the court found no grounds for Go's charges due to the lack of a public officer to conspire with.

Uploaded by

johnjomergalang
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as TXT, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
5 views1 page

Henry Go VS Sandiganbayan

The case involves Henry Go's petition for certiorari regarding charges of conspiracy with former DOTC secretary Rivera under the graft and corrupt practices act. The Supreme Court ruled that private individuals can be held liable for conspiring with public officers, but after Rivera's acquittal, the basis for Go's liability was removed, resulting in the dismissal of his case. Ultimately, the court found no grounds for Go's charges due to the lack of a public officer to conspire with.

Uploaded by

johnjomergalang
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as TXT, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

THIS IS A CASE ABOUT the petition for certiorari of the petitioner HENRY GO who

allegedly conspired with RIVERA former secretary of DOTC. he signed the 1997
Concession Agreement but on an earlier case of AGAN JR VS PIATCO 1997 Concession
Agreement was declared null and void for being contrary to public policy, since it
is against the RA 6957 BOT law
so henry go was charged of the section 3(g) of RA 3019 or the graft and corrupt
practices act
Petitioner Go contends that Section 3(g) of RA 3019, by its text, cannot be
extended to private persons
because the elements of section 3(g) of ra 3019 is
) 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.

issue is Whether Section 3(g) of RA 3019, which explicitly characterizes the


commission of the proscribed acts by public officers, can likewise apply and extend
liability to private individuals, such as Henry T. Go, allegedly conspiring with
public officers.

The Supreme Court upheld the Sandiganbayan’s resolutions and dismissed Henry T.
Go’s petition. The Court clarified that private persons, when acting in conspiracy
with public officers, may be indicted and held liable for violations of Section
3(g) of RA 3019. It emphasized that the framers of RA 3019 intended to repress
corrupt practices not just by public officers but also by private individuals who
might conspire with them.

but since the sandiganbayan acquitted RIVERA and the case against him dismissed

so in the second look of the case in 2009

SInce the Court found that Rivera, the public officer, was acquitted, there was no
longer a public officer with whom Go could have conspired. The acquittal removed
the
foundational basis for Go’s criminal liability, leading to the directive that the
case against
Henry T. Go also be dismissed.

You might also like