elibrary.judiciary.gov.

ph /thebookshelf/showdocs/1/66112

Supreme Court E-Library Information At Your Fingertips

Toggle posts

A A+ A++

CONTACT:
Supreme Court of the Philippines
Library Services,
Padre Faura, Ermita, Manila, Philippines 1000
(632) 8524-2706
[email protected]

1/8
 View printer friendly version

870 Phil. 880

SECOND DIVISION
[ G.R. Nos. 236308-09, February 17, 2020 ]
EFREN M. CANLAS, PETITIONER VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES AND THE
SANDIGANBAYAN (THIRD DIVISION), RESPONDENTS.

RESOLUTION

INTING, J.:

This is a Petition for Certiorari[1] under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court assailing the Resolutions dated
September 25, 2017[2] and November 20, 2017[3] of the Sandiganbayan Third Division (Sandiganbayan).
The Resolutions denied the two Motions to Quash Information,[4] and the Motion for Reconsideration[5] filed
by Efren M. Canlas (petitioner), respectively.

The Antecedents

Two Informations were filed against petitioner, along with public officers named therein, before the
Sandiganbayan in Criminal Case Nos. SB-16-CRM-0080 and SB-16-CRM-0084.[6] The Informations
charged him and his co-accused, former Mayor Jejomar Erwin S. Binay, Jr., among others, with violations of
Section 3(e)[7] of Republic Act No. (RA) 3019 in relation to the construction of the Makati City Hall Parking
Building.[8]

The Information[9] in Criminal Case No. SB-16-CRM-0080 alleged that the accused former Makati City
Mayor Jejomar Erwin S. Binay, Jr. and the other accused public officers of Makati City mentioned therein, in
the performance of their official and/or administrative functions, conspired with petitioner, a private individual
and the representative of Hilmarc's Construction Corporation (Hilmarc's), in giving unwarranted benefits,
advantage, and preference to Hilmarc's, and causing undue injury to the Government by awarding Hilmarc's
the contract for the Phase IV construction of the Makati City Hall Parking Building amounting to
P649,275,681.73, through simulated public bidding.[10] The relevant portions of the Information as to
petitioner's participation in the offense are quoted as follows:

SB-16-CRM-0080

xxxx

2/8
 c) De Veyra, San Gabriel, Dasal, Amores, and Binay, Jr., collectively making it appear in
the BAC Resolution that Hilmarc's, through Canlas, became the bidder with the
Lowest Calculated and Responsive Bid, which BAC Resolution was approved by
Binay, Jr. despite knowing the absence of public bidding;

d) Entering, through Binay, Jr., in to a Contract for the Phase IV construction of the
Makati City Hall Parking Building with Canlas, on behalf of Hilmarc's, and proceeding
with the said project despite the absence of the project's accepted and approved
plans and specifications, and the failure of Hilmarc's to post its performance security;
and

e) Processing and releasing of the payments to Hilmarc's by De Veyra. Amores, Lim,

The Information[12] in Criminal Case No. SB-16-CRM-0084 is similarly worded as to petitioner's participation,
except that SB-16-CRM-0084 involved the Phase V construction of the Makati City Hall Parking Building
amounting to P141,649,366.00.[13]

Petitioner filed a Motion to Quash Information dated July 13, 2017 in Criminal Case No. SB-16-CRM-0080,
and another Motion to Quash Information dated July 19, 2017 in Criminal Case No. SB-16-CRM-0084.[14]
He argued that the facts alleged in the Informations which charged him with the offense of violation of
Section 3(e) of RA 3019 did not constitute the charged offense for the following reasons: (1) RA 3019
explicitly applies only to public officers; however, the Informations alleged that he is a private individual; and
(2) the Informations did not allege that he induced or caused any public officer to commit a violation of
Section 3(e) of RA 3019 to render him liable under Section 4[15] thereof.[16]

The prosecution then filed on August 4, 2017 its Consolidated Opposition to Accused Canlas' Separate
Motions to Quash Information[17] dated August 3, 2017. Thereafter, petitioner filed his Reply to
"Consolidated Opposition to Accused Canlas' Separate Motions to Quash Information"[18] dated August 11,
2017.

In its Resolution[19] dated September 25, 2017, the Sandiganbayan denied the two motions to quash
information.[20]

Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the Resolution dated September 25, 2017, but this was
denied by he Sandiganbayan in its Resolution[21] dated November 20, 2017.[22]

Hence, the petition.

Petitioner adopts his arguments in the two motions to quash information and argues that as a private
individual, he can only be held liable under Section 4(b) of RA 3019.[23] Moreover, Section 3 of RA 3019

3/8
applies only to public officers.[24] Since the Informations did not allege that he committed the acts provided
under Section 4, the Informations should be quashed under Section 3(a), Rule 117 of the Rules of Court.[25]

Petitioner maintains that while the prosecution alleged that the accused public officers acted in conspiracy
with him, conspiracy does not make him a public officer.[26]

Petitioner further argues that there is not a single case in which a private person was held liable for violation
of Section 3(e) of RA 3019 under Section 4(b) of the law.[27] Thus, he prays for a reversal, or at least a
clarification, of the ruling in several cases decided by the Court to the effect that private individuals may be
held liable under Section 3 of RA 3019 if they act in conspiracy with public officers. Pursuant to Sections 3(h)
and 3(m), Rule 2 of the Internal Rules of the Supreme Court (A.M. No. 10-4-20-SC), the petition falls within
the responsibility of the Court En Banc.[28]

Lastly, he prays for the issuance of a temporary restraining order (TRO) to restrain the Sandiganbayan from
holding further proceedings in the two cases,[29] and the setting aside of the Resolutions dated September
25, 2017 and November 20, 2017 of the Sandiganbayan in Criminal Case Nos. SB-16-CRM-0080 and SB-
16-CRM-0084.[30]

On the other hand, in its Comment,[31] the People argues that a private individual, when acting in conspiracy
with public officers, may be indicted and held liable for the pertinent offenses under Section 3 of RA 3019.[32]
Moreover, by the very nature of the transaction involved in this case, which is a government procurement
and by petitioner's indispensable acts towards the consummation of the offense, he should be indicted
together with the accused public officials for violation of Section 3(e) of RA 3019.[33] Lastly, the People
argues that the issuance of a TRO to hold in abeyance a criminal prosecution is proscribed.[34]

The petition has no merit.

The Sandiganbayan did not commit grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in
denying petitioner's motions to quash the information. Moreover, the Court does not find the need to revisit
the doctrine that private individuals may be held liable under Section 3(e) of RA 3019 if they act in
conspiracy with public officers.

The well-settled rule is that "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, 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."[35]

In PCGG v. Office of the Ombudsman,[36] the Court reiterated the well-settled elements of Section 3(e) of RA
3019 as follows: (i) that the accused must be a public officer discharging administrative, judicial, or official
functions, or a private individual acting in conspiracy with such public officers; (ii) that he acted with manifest
partiality, evident bad faith, or inexcusable negligence; and (iii) that his action caused any undue injury to any

4/8
patty, including the government, or giving any private party unwarranted benefits, advantage, or preference
in the discharge of his functions.

The Court, in various cases, had the occasion to affirm the indictment and/or conviction of a private
individual, acting in conspiracy with public officers, for violation of Section 3 of RA 3019 particularly
paragraph (e) thereof.

Thus, in Go v. The Fifth Division, Sandiganbayan,[37] while the issue therein was whether a private individual
may be charged with violation of Section 3(g) of RA 3019, the Court discussed and relied on Singian, Jr. v.
Sandiganbayan (Third Division)[38] (Singian, Jr.) to rule in the affirmative.[39] In Singian, Jr. , Gregorio
Singian, Jr., therein petitioner, a private individual who was then the Executive Vice President of Integrated
Shoe, Inc. (ISI), was charged together with some officers of the Philippine National Bank (PNB) with violation
of both paragraphs (e) and (g), Section 3 of RA 3019 in connection with the loan accommodations extended
by PNB to ISI which were characterized as behest loans.[40] The Court ruled that the Ombudsman and the
Sandiganbayan did not commit grave abuse of discretion when they respectively found probable cause
against Singian, Jr. for violation of both paragraphs (e) and (g), Section 3 of RA 3019.[41]

Further, in Uyboco vs. People,[42] the Court discussed the criminal liability of Edelbert C. Uyboco (Uyboco), a
private individual who acted in conspiracy with his co-accused public officer in the procurement of overpriced
dump trucks.[43] The Court affirmed his conviction by the Sandiganbayan under Section 3(e) of RA 3019.[44]

Similarly, in PCGG v. Navarra-Gutierrez, et al.,[45] the Presidential Commission on Good Governance filed
an Affidavit-Complaint against private respondents who were former officers/stockholders of National
Galleon Shipping Corporation (Galleon), together with the public respondents who were former
officers/directors of the Development Bank of the Philippines (DBP), for violation of Section 3(e) and (g) of
RA 3019 in connection with the loans/accommodations obtained by Galleon from DBP which possessed the
characteristics of behest loans.[46] Reversing the Office of the Ombudsman's ruling, the Court ruled that
there was probable cause to indict the private respondents and the public respondents for violation of
Section 3(e) and (g) of RA 3019.[47]

Given the foregoing pronouncements, the petition, together with the prayer therein that the case be referred
to the Court En Banc and that a TRO be issued, should be denied.

WHEREFORE, the petition is DISMISSED. The Resolutions dated September 25, 2017 and November 20,
2017 of the Sandiganbayan Third Division are AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED.

Perlas-Bernabe, Senior Associate Justice, (Chairperson), A. Reyes, Jr., Hernando, and Delos Santos, JJ.,
concur.

[1]Rollo, pp. 6-33.

5/8
[2]Id. at 36-46; penned by Presiding Justice Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang with Associate Justices Sarah Jane T.

Fernandez and Bernelito R. Fernandez, concurring.

[3]Id. at 47-56.

[4]Id. at 93-103, 104-114.

[5]Id. at 128-140.

[6]Id. at 39.

[7] Section 3. Corrupt practices of public officers. - In addition to acts or omissions of public officers already

penalized by existing law, the following shall constitute corrupt practices of any public officer and are hereby
declared to be unlawful:

xxxx

(e) Causing any undue injury to any party, including the Government, or giving any private party any
unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference in the discharge of his official administrative or
judicial functions through manifest partiality, evident bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence.
This provision shall apply to officers and employees of offices or government corporations
charged with the grant of licenses or permits or other concessions.

[8]Rollo, pp. 71, 76.

[9]Id. at 69-73.

[10]Id. at 70-71.

[11]Id. at 71-72.

[12]Id. at 74-78.

[13]Id. at 76.

[14]Id. at 36-37.

[15] Section 4. Prohibition on private individuals. - (a) It shall be unlawful for any person having family or

close personal relation with any public official to capitalize or exploit or take advantage of such family or
close personal relation by directly or indirectly requesting or receiving any present, gift or material or
pecuniary advantage from any other person having some business, transaction, application request or
contract with the government,in which such public official has to intervene. Family relation shall include the
spouse or relatives by consanguinity or affinity in the third civil degree. The word "close personal relation"

6/8
shall include close personal friendship, social and fraternal connections, and professional employment all
giving rise to intimacy which assures free access to such public officer.

(b) It shall be unlawful for any person knowingly to induce or cause any public official to commit any of the
offenses defined in Section 3 hereof.

[16]Rollo, p. 37.

[17]Id. at 115-120.

[18]Id. at 121-127.

[19]Id. at 36-46.

[20]Id. at 45.

[21]Id. at 47-56.

[23]Id. at 22.

[24]Id. at 24.

[25]Id. at 22-23.

[26]Id. at 25.

[27]Id. at 28.

[28]Id. at 29.

[29]Id. at 29-30.

[30]Id. at 30-31.

[31]Id. at 160-174.

[32]Id. at 162- 166.

[33]Id. at 168.

[34]Id. at 170-172.

[35]Uyboco v. People, 749 Phil. 987, 993-994 (2014), citing People v. Go, 730 Phil. 362, 369 (2014).

7/8
[36] G.R. No. 194619, March 20, 2019.

[37] 549 Phil. 783 (2007).

[38] 514 Phil. 536. (2005).

[39]Supra note 37 at 800-801 (2007).

[40]Supra note 38 at 539-541 (2005). See also supra note 37 at 800 (2007).

[41]Id. at 546-552.

[42] 749 Phil. 987 (2014).

[43]Id. at 992-996.

[44]Id. at 998.

[45] 772 Phil. 91 (2015).

[46]Id. at 94-97.

[47] Id. at 106.

© Supreme Court E-Library 2019

8/8