G.R. No.

168539 March 25, 2014

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner,
vs.
HENRY T. GO, Respondent.
D E C I S I O N
PERLT, J.:
Before the Court is a petition for review on certiorari assailing the Resolution

of the !hird Division

"
of the
Sandigan#a$an %SB& dated 'une ", "(() which *uashed the Infor+ation filed against herein respondent for alleged
violation of Section , %g& of Repu#lic -ct No. ,(. %R.-. ,(.&, otherwise /nown as the -nti01raft and Corrupt
Practices -ct.
!he Infor+ation filed against respondent is an offshoot of this Court2s Decision
,
in -gan, 'r. v. Philippine International
-ir !er+inals Co., Inc. which nullified the various contracts awarded #$ the 1overn+ent, through the Depart+ent of
!ransportation and Co++unications %DO!C&, to Philippine -ir !er+inals, Co., Inc. %PI-!CO& for the construction,
operation and +aintenance of the Nino$ -*uino International -irport International Passenger !er+inal III %N-I- IP!
III&. Su#se*uent to the a#ove Decision, a certain 3a. Cecilia 4. Pesa$co filed a co+plaint with the Office of the
O+#uds+an against several individuals for alleged violation of R.-. ,(.. -+ong those charged was herein
respondent, who was then the Chair+an and President of PI-!CO, for having supposedl$ conspired with then DO!C
Secretar$ -rturo Enrile %Secretar$ Enrile& in entering into a contract which is grossl$ and +anifestl$ disadvantageous
to the govern+ent.
On Septe+#er 5, "((6, the Office of the Deput$ O+#uds+an for 4u7on found pro#a#le cause to indict, a+ong
others, herein respondent for violation of Section ,%g& of R.-. ,(.. 8hile there was li/ewise a finding of pro#a#le
cause against Secretar$ Enrile, he was no longer indicted #ecause he died prior to the issuance of the resolution
finding pro#a#le cause.
!hus, in an Infor+ation dated 'anuar$ ,, "((), respondent was charged #efore the SB as follows9
On or a#out 'ul$ ", ..:, or so+eti+e prior or su#se*uent thereto, in Pasa$ Cit$, 3etro 3anila, Philippines and
within the ;urisdiction of this <onora#le Court, the late -R!=RO ENRI4E, then Secretar$ of the Depart+ent of
!ransportation and Co++unications %DO!C&, co++itting the offense in relation to his office and ta/ing advantage of
the sa+e, in conspirac$ with accused, <ENR> !. 1O, Chair+an and President of the Philippine International -ir
!er+inals, Co., Inc. %PI-!CO&, did then and there, willfull$, unlawfull$ and cri+inall$ enter into a Concession
-gree+ent, after the pro;ect for the construction of the Nino$ -*uino International -irport International Passenger
!er+inal III %N-I- IP! III& was awarded to Paircargo Consortiu+?PI-!CO, which Concession -gree+ent su#stantiall$
a+ended the draft Concession -gree+ent covering the construction of the N-I- IP! III under Repu#lic -ct 5.):, as
a+ended #$ Repu#lic -ct ::@ %BO! law&, specificall$ the provision on Pu#lic =tilit$ Revenues, as well as the
assu+ption #$ the govern+ent of the lia#ilities of PI-!CO in the event of the latter2s default under -rticle IA, Section
6.(6 %#& and %c& in relation to -rticle .(5 of the Concession -gree+ent, which ter+s are +ore #eneficial to PI-!CO
while +anifestl$ and grossl$ disadvantageous to the govern+ent of the Repu#lic of the Philippines.
6
!he case was doc/eted as Cri+inal Case No. "@(.(.
On 3arch (, "((), the SB issued an Order, to wit9
!he prosecution is given a period of ten %(& da$s fro+ toda$ within which to show cause wh$ this case should not #e
dis+issed for lac/ of ;urisdiction over the person of the accused considering that the accused is a private person and
the pu#lic official -rturo Enrile, his alleged co0conspirator, is alread$ deceased, and not an accused in this case.
)
!he prosecution co+plied with the a#ove Order contending that the SB has alread$ ac*uired ;urisdiction over the
person of respondent #$ reason of his voluntar$ appearance, when he filed a +otion for consolidation and when he
posted #ail. !he prosecution also argued that the SB has eBclusive ;urisdiction over respondent2s case, even if he is a
private person, #ecause he was alleged to have conspired with a pu#lic officer.
5
On -pril "@, "((), respondent filed a 3otion to Cuash
:
the Infor+ation filed against hi+ on the ground that the
operative facts adduced therein do not constitute an offense under Section ,%g& of R.-. ,(.. Respondent, citing the
show cause order of the SB, also contended that, independentl$ of the deceased Secretar$ Enrile, the pu#lic officer
with who+ he was alleged to have conspired, respondent, who is not a pu#lic officer nor was capacitated #$ an$
official authorit$ as a govern+ent agent, +a$ not #e prosecuted for violation of Section ,%g& of R.-. ,(..
!he prosecution filed its Opposition.
@
On 'une ", "((), the SB issued its assailed Resolution, pertinent portions of which read thus9
-cting on the 3otion to Cuash filed #$ accused <enr$ !. 1o dated -pril "", "((), and it appearing that <enr$ !. 1o,
the lone accused in this case is a private person and his alleged co0conspirator0pu#lic official was alread$ deceased
long #efore this case was filed in court, for lac/ of ;urisdiction over the person of the accused, the Court grants the
3otion to Cuash and the Infor+ation filed in this case is here#$ ordered *uashed and dis+issed.
.
<ence, the instant petition raising the following issues, to wit9
I
8<E!<ER OR NO! !<E CO=R! - C=O 1R-AE4> ERRED -ND DECIDED - C=ES!ION OD S=BS!-NCE IN -
3-NNER NO! IN -CCORD 8I!< 4-8 OR -PP4IC-B4E '=RISPR=DENCE IN 1R-N!IN1 !<E DE3=RRER !O
EAIDENCE -ND IN DIS3ISSIN1 CRI3IN-4 C-SE NO. "@(.( ON !<E 1RO=ND !<-! I! <-S NO
'=RISDIC!ION OAER !<E PERSON OD RESPONDEN! 1O.
II
8<E!<ER OR NO! !<E CO=R! - C=O 1R-AE4> ERRED -ND DECIDED - C=ES!ION OD S=BS!-NCE IN -
3-NNER NO! IN -CCORD 8I!< 4-8 OR -PP4IC-B4E '=RISPR=DENCE, IN R=4IN1 !<-! I! <-S NO
'=RISDIC!ION OAER !<E PERSON OD RESPONDEN! 1O DESPI!E !<E IRRED=!-B4E D-C! !<-! <E <-S
-4RE-D> POS!ED B-I4 DOR <IS PROAISION-4 4IBER!>
III
8<E!<ER OR NO! !<E CO=R! - C=O 1R-AE4> ERRED 8<EN, IN CO3P4E!E DISRE1-RD OD !<E EC=-4
PRO!EC!ION C4-=SE OD !<E CONS!I!=!ION, I! C=-S<ED !<E INDOR3-!ION -ND DIS3ISSED CRI3IN-4
C-SE NO. "@(.(
(
!he Court finds the petition +eritorious.
Section , %g& of R.-. ,(. provides9
Sec. ,. Corrupt practices of pu#lic officers. E In addition to acts or o+issions of pu#lic officers alread$ penali7ed #$
eBisting law, the following shall constitute corrupt practices of an$ pu#lic officer and are here#$ declared to #e
unlawful9
B B B B
%g& Entering, on #ehalf of the 1overn+ent, into an$ contract or transaction +anifestl$ and grossl$ disadvantageous to
the sa+e, whether or not the pu#lic officer profited or will profit there#$.
!he ele+ents of the a#ove provision are9
%& that the accused is a pu#lic officerF
%"& that he entered into a contract or transaction on #ehalf of the govern+entF and
%,& that such contract or transaction is grossl$ and +anifestl$ disadvantageous to the govern+ent.

-t the outset, it #ears to reiterate the settled rule that private persons, when acting in conspirac$ with pu#lic officers,
+a$ #e indicted and, if found guilt$, held lia#le for the pertinent offenses under Section , of R.-. ,(., in consonance
with the avowed polic$ of the anti0graft law to repress certain acts of pu#lic officers and private persons ali/e
constituting graft or corrupt practices act or which +a$ lead thereto.
"
!his is the controlling doctrine as enunciated #$
this Court in previous cases, a+ong which is a case involving herein private respondent.
,
!he onl$ *uestion that needs to #e settled in the present petition is whether herein respondent, a private person, +a$
#e indicted for conspirac$ in violating Section ,%g& of R.-. ,(. even if the pu#lic officer, with who+ he was alleged to
have conspired, has died prior to the filing of the Infor+ation.
Respondent contends that #$ reason of the death of Secretar$ Enrile, there is no pu#lic officer who was charged in
the Infor+ation and, as such, prosecution against respondent +a$ not prosper.
!he Court is not persuaded.
It is true that #$ reason of Secretar$ Enrile2s death, there is no longer an$ pu#lic officer with who+ respondent can #e
charged for violation of R.-. ,(.. It does not +ean, however, that the allegation of conspirac$ #etween the+ can no
longer #e proved or that their alleged conspirac$ is alread$ eBpunged. !he onl$ thing eBtinguished #$ the death of
Secretar$ Enrile is his cri+inal lia#ilit$. <is death did not eBtinguish the cri+e nor did it re+ove the #asis of the charge
of conspirac$ #etween hi+ and private respondent. Stated differentl$, the death of Secretar$ Enrile does not +ean
that there was no pu#lic officer who allegedl$ violated Section , %g& of R.-. ,(.. In fact, the Office of the Deput$
O+#uds+an for 4u7on found pro#a#le cause to indict Secretar$ Enrile for infringe+ent of Sections , %e& and %g& of
R.-. ,(..
6
8ere it not for his death, he should have #een charged.
!he re*uire+ent #efore a private person +a$ #e indicted for violation of Section ,%g& of R.-. ,(., a+ong others, is
that such private person +ust #e alleged to have acted in conspirac$ with a pu#lic officer. !he law, however, does not
re*uire that such person +ust, in all instances, #e indicted together with the pu#lic officer. If circu+stances eBist
where the pu#lic officer +a$ no longer #e charged in court, as in the present case where the pu#lic officer has
alread$ died, the private person +a$ #e indicted alone.
Indeed, it is not necessar$ to ;oin all alleged co0conspirators in an indict+ent for conspirac$.
)
If two or +ore persons
enter into a conspirac$, an$ act done #$ an$ of the+ pursuant to the agree+ent is, in conte+plation of law, the act of
each of the+ and the$ are ;ointl$ responsi#le therefor.
5
!his +eans that ever$thing said, written or done #$ an$ of the
conspirators in eBecution or furtherance of the co++on purpose is dee+ed to have #een said, done, or written #$
each of the+ and it +a/es no difference whether the actual actor is alive or dead, sane or insane at the ti+e of
trial.
:
!he death of one of two or +ore conspirators does not prevent the conviction of the survivor or
survivors.
@
!hus, this Court held that9
B B B GaH conspirac$ is in its nature a ;oint offense. One person cannot conspire alone. !he cri+e depends upon the
;oint act or intent of two or +ore persons. >et, it does not follow that one person cannot #e convicted of conspirac$.
So long as the ac*uittal or death of a co0conspirator does not re+ove the #ases of a charge for conspirac$, one
defendant +a$ #e found guilt$ of the offense.
.
!he Court agrees with petitioner2s contention that, as alleged in the Infor+ation filed against respondent, which is
dee+ed h$potheticall$ ad+itted in the latter2s 3otion to Cuash, he %respondent& conspired with Secretar$ Enrile in
violating Section , %g& of R.-. ,(. and that in conspirac$, the act of one is the act of all. <ence, the cri+inal lia#ilit$
incurred #$ a co0conspirator is also incurred #$ the other co0conspirators.
3oreover, the Court agrees with petitioner that the avowed polic$ of the State and the legislative intent to repress
Iacts of pu#lic officers and private persons ali/e, which constitute graft or corrupt practices,I
"(
would #e frustrated if
the death of a pu#lic officer would #ar the prosecution of a private person who conspired with such pu#lic officer in
violating the -nti01raft 4aw.
In this regard, this Court2s dis*uisition in the earl$ case of People v. Peralta
"
as to the nature of and the principles
governing conspirac$, as construed under Philippine ;urisdiction, is instructive, to wit9
B B B - conspirac$ eBists when two or +ore persons co+e to an agree+ent concerning the co++ission of a felon$
and decide to co++it it. 1enerall$, conspirac$ is not a cri+e eBcept when the law specificall$ provides a penalt$
therefor as in treason, re#ellion and sedition. !he cri+e of conspirac$ /nown to the co++on law is not an indicta#le
offense in the Philippines. -n agree+ent to co++it a cri+e is a reprehensi#le act fro+ the view0point of +oralit$, #ut
as long as the conspirators do not perfor+ overt acts in furtherance of their +alevolent design, the sovereignt$ of the
State is not outraged and the tran*uilit$ of the pu#lic re+ains undistur#ed.
<owever, when in resolute eBecution of a co++on sche+e, a felon$ is co++itted #$ two or +ore +alefactors, the
eBistence of a conspirac$ assu+es pivotal i+portance in the deter+ination of the lia#ilit$ of the perpetrators. In
stressing the significance of conspirac$ in cri+inal law, this Court in =.S. vs. Infante and Barreto opined that
8hile it is true that the penalties cannot #e i+posed for the +ere act of conspiring to co++it a cri+e unless the
statute specificall$ prescri#es a penalt$ therefor, nevertheless the eBistence of a conspirac$ to co++it a cri+e is in
+an$ cases a fact of vital i+portance, when considered together with the other evidence of record, in esta#lishing the
eBistence, of the consu++ated cri+e and its co++ission #$ the conspirators.
Once an eBpress or i+plied conspirac$ is proved, all of the conspirators are lia#le as co0principals regardless of the
eBtent and character of their respective active participation in the co++ission of the cri+e or cri+es perpetrated in
furtherance of the conspirac$ #ecause in conte+plation of law the act of one is the act of all. !he foregoing rule is
anchored on the sound principle that Iwhen two or +ore persons unite to acco+plish a cri+inal o#;ect, whether
through the ph$sical volition of one, or all, proceeding severall$ or collectivel$, each individual whose evil will activel$
contri#utes to the wrong0doing is in law responsi#le for the whole, the sa+e as though perfor+ed #$ hi+self alone.I
-lthough it is aBio+atic that no one is lia#le for acts other than his own, Iwhen two or +ore persons agree or conspire
to co++it a cri+e, each is responsi#le for all the acts of the others, done in furtherance of the agree+ent or
conspirac$.I !he i+position of collective lia#ilit$ upon the conspirators is clearl$ eBplained in one case where this
Court held that B B B it is i+possi#le to graduate the separate lia#ilit$ of each %conspirator& without ta/ing into
consideration the close and insepara#le relation of each of the+ with the cri+inal act, for the co++ission of which
the$ all acted #$ co++on agree+ent B B B. !he cri+e +ust therefore in view of the solidarit$ of the act and intent
which eBisted #etween the B B B accused, #e regarded as the act of the #and or part$ created #$ the+, and the$ are
all e*uall$ responsi#le B B B
Aeril$, the +o+ent it is esta#lished that the +alefactors conspired and confederated in the co++ission of the felon$
proved, collective lia#ilit$ of the accused conspirators attaches #$ reason of the conspirac$, and the court shall not
speculate nor even investigate as to the actual degree of participation of each of the perpetrators present at the
scene of the cri+e. Of course, as to an$ conspirator who was re+ote fro+ the situs of aggression, he could #e drawn
within the enveloping a+#it of the conspirac$ if it #e proved that through his +oral ascendanc$ over the rest of the
conspirators the latter were +oved or i+pelled to carr$ out the conspirac$.
In fine, the convergence of the wills of the conspirators in the sche+ing and eBecution of the cri+e a+pl$ ;ustifies the
i+putation to all of the+ the act of an$ one of the+. It is in this light that conspirac$ is generall$ viewed not as a
separate indicta#le offense, #ut a rule for collectivi7ing cri+inal lia#ilit$.
B B B B
B B B - ti+e0honored rule in the corpus of our ;urisprudence is that once conspirac$ is proved, all of the conspirators
who acted in furtherance of the co++on design are lia#le as co0principals. !his rule of collective cri+inal lia#ilit$
e+anates fro+ the ensnaring nature of conspirac$. !he concerted action of the conspirators in consu++ating their
co++on purpose is a patent displa$ of their evil partnership, and for the conse*uences of such cri+inal enterprise
the$ +ust #e held solidaril$ lia#le.
""
!his is not to sa$, however, that private respondent should #e found guilt$ of conspiring with Secretar$ Enrile. It is
settled that the a#sence or presence of conspirac$ is factual in nature and involves evidentiar$ +atters.
",
<ence, the
allegation of conspirac$ against respondent is #etter left ventilated #efore the trial court during trial, where respondent
can adduce evidence to prove or disprove its presence.
Respondent clai+s in his 3anifestation and 3otion
"6
as well as in his =rgent 3otion to Resolve
")
that in a different
case, he was li/ewise indicted #efore the SB for conspirac$ with the late Secretar$ Enrile in violating the sa+e
Section , %g& of R.-. ,(. #$ allegedl$ entering into another agree+ent %Side -gree+ent& which is separate fro+ the
Concession -gree+ent su#;ect of the present case. !he case was doc/eted as Cri+inal Case No. "@(.. <ere, the
SB, through a Resolution, granted respondent2s +otion to *uash the Infor+ation on the ground that the SB has no
;urisdiction over the person of respondent. !he prosecution *uestioned the said SB Resolution #efore this Court via a
petition for review on certiorari. !he petition was doc/eted as 1.R. No. 5@... In a +inute resolution dated -ugust
,, "((), this Court denied the petition finding no reversi#le error on the part of the SB. !his Resolution #eca+e final
and eBecutor$ on 'anuar$ , "((5. Respondent now argues that this Court2s resolution in 1.R. No. 5@.. should
#e applied in the instant case.
!he Court does not agree. Respondent should #e re+inded that prior to this Court2s ruling in 1.R. No. 5@.., he
alread$ posted #ail for his provisional li#ert$. In fact, he even filed a 3otion for Consolidation
"5
in Cri+inal Case No.
"@(.. !he Court agrees with petitioner2s contention that private respondent2s act of posting #ail and filing his 3otion
for Consolidation vests the SB with ;urisdiction over his person. !he rule is well settled that the act of an accused in
posting #ail or in filing +otions see/ing affir+ative relief is tanta+ount to su#+ission of his person to the ;urisdiction
of the court.
":
!hus, it has #een held that9
8hen a defendant in a cri+inal case is #rought #efore a co+petent court #$ virtue of a warrant of arrest or otherwise,
in order to avoid the su#+ission of his #od$ to the ;urisdiction of the court he +ust raise the *uestion of the courtJs
;urisdiction over his person at the ver$ earliest opportunit$. If he gives #ail, de+urs to the co+plaint or files an$
dilator$ plea or pleads to the +erits, he there#$ gives the court ;urisdiction over his person. %State eB rel. 'ohn Brown
vs. Dit7gerald, ) 3inn., ),6&
B B B B
-s ruled in 4a Naval Drug vs. C- G",5 SCR- :@, @5H9
IG4Hac/ of ;urisdiction over the person of the defendant +a$ #e waived either eBpressl$ or i+pliedl$. 8hen a
defendant voluntaril$ appears, he is dee+ed to have su#+itted hi+self to the ;urisdiction of the court. If he so wishes
not to waive this defense, he +ust do so seasona#l$ #$ +otion for the purpose of o#;ecting to the ;urisdiction of the
courtF otherwise, he shall #e dee+ed to have su#+itted hi+self to that ;urisdiction.I
3oreover, IGwHhere the appearance is #$ +otion for the purpose of o#;ecting to the ;urisdiction of the court over the
person, it +ust #e for the sole and separate purpose of o#;ecting to said ;urisdiction. If the appearance is for an$
other purpose, the defendant is dee+ed to have su#+itted hi+self to the ;urisdiction of the court. Such an
appearance gives the court ;urisdiction over the person.I
Aeril$, petitionerJs participation in the proceedings #efore the Sandigan#a$an was not confined to his opposition to the
issuance of a warrant of arrest #ut also covered other +atters which called for respondent courtJs eBercise of its
;urisdiction. Petitioner +a$ not #e heard now to den$ said courtJs ;urisdiction over hi+. B B B.
"@
In the instant case, respondent did not +a/e an$ special appearance to *uestion the ;urisdiction of the SB over his
person prior to his posting of #ail and filing his 3otion for Consolidation. In fact, his 3otion to Cuash the Infor+ation
in Cri+inal Case No. "@(.( onl$ ca+e after the SB issued an Order re*uiring the prosecution to show cause wh$ the
case should not #e dis+issed for lac/ of ;urisdiction over his person.
-s a recapitulation, it would not #e a+iss to point out that the instant case involves a contract entered into #$ pu#lic
officers representing the govern+ent. 3ore i+portantl$, the SB is a special cri+inal court which has eBclusive original
;urisdiction in all cases involving violations of R.-. ,(. co++itted #$ certain pu#lic officers, as enu+erated in P.D.
5(5 as a+ended #$ R.-. @"6.. !his includes private individuals who are charged as co0principals, acco+plices or
accessories with the said pu#lic officers. In the instant case, respondent is #eing charged for violation of Section ,%g&
of R.-. ,(., in conspirac$ with then Secretar$ Enrile. Ideall$, under the law, #oth respondent and Secretar$ Enrile
should have #een charged #efore and tried ;ointl$ #$ the Sandigan#a$an. <owever, #$ reason of the death of the
latter, this can no longer #e done. Nonetheless, for reasons alread$ discussed, it does not follow that the SB is
alread$ divested of its ;urisdiction over the person of and the case involving herein respondent. !o rule otherwise
would +ean that the power of a court to decide a case would no longer #e #ased on the law defining its ;urisdiction
#ut on other factors, such as the death of one of the alleged offenders.
4astl$, the issues raised in the present petition involve +atters which are +ere incidents in the +ain case and the
+ain case has alread$ #een pending for over nine %.& $ears. !hus, a referral of the case to the Regional !rial Court
would further dela$ the resolution of the +ain case and it would, #$ no +eans, pro+ote respondent2s right to a
speed$ trial and a speed$ disposition of his case.
8<EREDORE, the petition is 1R-N!ED. !he Resolution of the Sandigan#a$an dated 'une ", "((), granting
respondent2s 3otion to Cuash, is here#$ REAERSED and SE! -SIDE. !he Sandigan#a$an is forthwith DIREC!ED
to proceed with deli#erate dispatch in the disposition of Cri+inal Case No. "@(.(.
SO ORDERED.
!IOS!!O M. PERLT
-ssociate 'ustice
8E CONC=R9
No part, for+er counsel in related cases
MRI LO"R!ES P. . SERENO
Chief 'ustice