By Atty. Julius Gregory B. Delgado
EFREN CANLAS VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES AND THE SANDIGANBAYAN (THIRD DIVISION),
G.R. NOS. 236308-09 (FEBRUARY 17, 2020): RESTATEMENT OF THE PRINCIPLE THAT PRIVATE
INDIVIDUALS MAY BE CHARGED WITH VIOLATION OF SECTION 3 (E) OF RA 3019 (ANTI-GRAFT AND
CORRUPT PRACTICES ACT) IF THEY CONSPIRED WITH THE ACCUSED PUBLIC OFFICERS
The case is a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court filed by petitioner Efren
Canlas (“petitioner Canlas”), principal of Hilmarc’s Construction Corporation. Along with accused public
officers, including former Makati City Mayor Jejormar Erwin S. Binay, Jr., petitioner Canlas were charged
with violation of Section 3 (e) of Republic Act No. 3019, otherwise known as the Anti-Graft and Corrupt
Practices Act. Petitioner Canlas was accused in the Information of being the recipient of unwarranted
benefits, advantage and preference causing undue injury to the Government by awarding to his
Company the contract for Phase IV of the Makati City Hall Parking Building amounting to
Php649,275,681.73, through simulated public bidding. Petitioner Canlas is questioning the denial of the
Sandiganbayan of his Motions to Quash and the subsequent Motion for Reconsideration.
Petitioner argues that he can only be held liable under Section 4(b) of RA 3019. Moreover, he
said that Section 3 of RA 3019 applies only to public officers. 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. 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. 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.
The Supreme Court denied petitioner’s Petition for Certiorari and restated the principle that it is
well settled 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.”
The Court also restated the elements of violation of Section 3 (e) of RA 3019 as held in PCGG vs.
Office of the Ombudsman, G.R. No. 194619 (March 20, 2019), to wit: (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 patty, including the
government, or giving any private party unwarranted benefits, advantage, or preference in the
discharge of his functions.
The Court also listed the occasions wherein it upheld the indictment and/or conviction of private
individuals, 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, 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. 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. 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.
Further, in Uyboco vs. People, 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. The Court affirmed his conviction by
the Sandiganbayan under Section 3(e) of RA 3019.
Similarly, in PCGG v. Navarra-Gutierrez, et al., 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. 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.”
This ruling clearly settles in stone the principle that even if RA 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt
Practices Act) is primarily geared towards punishing corrupt public officers, the same applies to the
beneficiary/recipient private individuals who acted in conspiracy with the public officers to commit the
corrupt acts. The Sandiganbayan should not be faulted in denying any motion for the quashal of the
Information if it is proper in its form by alleging that the accused private individual conspired with the
accused public officer. Any defense should be threshed out during the trial, i.e., that he acted in good
faith and to inject reasonable doubt as to the allegation that he conspired with the public officer as
“conspiracy”, like the crime itself, must be proven beyond any reasonable doubt.