Filtered By: Topstories
News

De Lima: Deal between Gen. Garcia, Ombudsman illegal


(Updated 6:19 p.m.) The plea bargain entered into by former Armed Forces comptroller Carlos Garcia with the Office of the Ombudsman that allowed him to walk free was "illegal and unconscionable," Justice Secretary Leila de Lima said on Monday. De Lima said the plea bargain that allowed Garcia to post a P60,000 bail last Saturday is "manifestly disadvantageous" to the government and bears "signs of collusion" between the accused and the Office of the Special Prosecutor, which is under the Office of the Ombudsman. "It is doubtful that it has been entered into solely with the best interest of the country in mind," De Lima said in a statement. Garcia had earlier pleaded guilty to lesser offenses in two cases he's facing before the Sandiganbayan, including plunder for allegedly amassing P303.27 million in ill-gotten wealth while he was in active military service. De Lima, however, explained that Rule 116 Section 2 of the Rules of Court provides that the accused may only plea to a lesser offense before arraignment or after arraignment but in any case, before start of the trial. Garcia's plea to the lesser offense of indirect bribery was made long after trial had already started, she noted. "Tainted with illegality" "This only shows that the deal between the Ombudsman and Gen. Garcia is tainted with illegality from the start, and should be nullified for having been made in clear violation of the pertinent provision of the Rules of Court on plea bargaining," De Lima said. "This irregularity in the deal also shows that other considerations might have influenced or attended its hatching," she added. De Lima said the administration is already studying what legal actions should be taken against Special Prosecutor Wendell Barreras-Sulit and her team for the "deplorable abdication" of their duty to prosecute criminals, especially those accused of stealing from the nation's coffers. She likewise said that she will assign a team of prosecutors to assist the Office of the President in investigating Barreras-Sulit and in preparing the formal charges that may be filed against her. "She (Sulit) should be held accountable for administrative or criminal offenses that she may have committed in entering into a disadvantageous and illegal deal with one of the biggest plunderers in the nation's history," De Lima said. Section 8 of the Ombudsman Act of 1989 provides that the special prosecutor may be removed from office by the President for any grounds provided for the removal of the Ombudsman, including betrayal of public trust. Nothing illegal Barreras-Sulit, meanwhile, defended the plea bargain with Garcia, saying there was nothing illegal about it. "As far as the prosecution is concerned, the plea bargaining agreement is in accord with the prevailing jurisprudence," she said in a press statement posted Monday afternoon on the Office of the Ombudsman website. Barreras-Sulit accused De Lima of issuing statements "without first knowing all the facts of the case and the proceedings that have transpired leading to the said plea bargaining agreement." "Secretary De Lima should refrain from issuing any derogatory statements against the Special Prosecutor and the lawyers representing the Office of the Ombudsman in the case against General Carlos F. Garcia, before the Sandiganbayan has released its decision on the plea bargaining agreement submitted to it by the parties for approval," she said. Barreras-Sulit declined to comment further, saying the matter as it stands is still sub judice. "Any comment relative to the merit of the plea bargaining agreement is premature and contemptuous, specially the malicious insinuations that there was collusion between the parties in the case and, worse, other considerations influenced the action of the prosecution," she said. She said the claim that the anti-corruption efforts of the government is undermined by the plea bargaining agreement is "merely an unsupported conclusion." Noynoy disappointed In an ambush interview at the Ninoy Aquino International Airport, a disappointed President Benigno Aquino III said his legal team is now studying whether there are legal remedies that can stop the plea bargain. "Gusto natin malaman ano nangyari. Gusto natin malaman meron pa bang natitirang mga hakbang para maproteksyunan ang interes ng taumbayan (We want to know what happened. We want to know if there are still ways to protect the interest of the public)," he said. Aquino said he was very "disappointed" with the prosecution's entry into a plea bargain when the evidence against Garcia seemed to be strong. "Hindi ako sang-ayon dun sa mahirap patunayan to (plunder) pero gusto natin malaman, saan na nga ba ang parte ng proseso inabot para makita kung ano pa mga hakbang na magagawa. Yun ang nirereview ng ating legal counsels (I do not agree that plunder is hard to prove but we also want to know what's going on in the process so we know what steps to take. That's what our legal counsels are reviewing)," he said. Earlier in the day, presidential spokesman Edwin Lacierda admitted that as of the moment, the Palace cannot intervene in the decision because the Ombudsman is a constitutionally-independent body. At a press briefing, however, Lacierda urged Ombudsman Merceditas Gutierrez to explain why the plea bargain was entered into when the plunder evidence against Garcia was "pretty strong." "[President Benigno Aquino III] would like to know why a plea bargain was struck when the evidence of plunder against Gen. Garcia was pretty strong," he said. "We just have to see first what the explanation of the Ombudsman would be before the bar of public opinion. If she does not want to explain to us as she is not required to do so, she could explain to the public why there was a plea bargain that was struck between the government and Gen. Garcia," Lacierda added. Lacierda said Malacañang would also ask De Lima about the basis for her opinion that the plea bargain was illegal. At the House of Representatives, Dasmariñas City Rep. Elpidio Barzaga Jr. said Malacañang cannot do anything to stop Garcia's court-approved plea bargain. "If the plea agreement has in fact been sealed by the court, then based on the principle of separation of powers between the executive and the judicial branches of government, Malacañang is not in a position to review or reverse the deal," Barzaga said in a statement. What is a plea deal? "Plea deals are permitted by court rules. In fact, our jurisprudence on the matter is quite rich," he added. He said a plea bargain is an agreement in a criminal case where the prosecutor offers the accused the chance to plead guilty, usually to a lesser charge or to the original charge, with the endorsement of a lighter than the maximum sentence. "Plea deals ensure that offenders do not escape punishment, allow the speedy resolution of cases, and enable both prosecutors and the court to move on and work on other cases, which are numerous," Barzaga said. President Benigno Aquino III earlier ordered Executive Secretary Paquito Ochoa Jr. to review the plea bargain. Barzaga, a prosecution lawyer for more than 20 years, doubted whether Malacañang could do anything lawful to prevail upon the Ombudsman to disengage from any plea deals. "We must stress that under the Constitution, the Ombudsman is supposed to be an independent body," he said. Garcia, who was in charge of disbursement of military funds when he was comptroller of the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP), is by far the the highest-ranked military official undergoing trial by the Sandiganbayan anti-graft court for the crime of plunder, or graft and corruption on a massive scale. Garcia is a member of the Philippine Military Academy Class of 1971, whose other prominent members include Senators Gregorio Honasan and Panfilo Lacson. Garcia entered a guilty plea to direct bribery and Section 4-B of the Anti-Money Laundering Act (AMLA) before the Sandiganbayan's Second Division, but pleaded not guilty to the charges of plunder and violation of Sec. 4-A of AMLA. Plunder is a non-bailable capital offense punishable by reclusion perpetua. Direct bribery, on the other hand, is punishable by six years to 12 years imprisonment under the Revised Penal Code. Under Section 4 of the AMLA, money laundering is described as "a crime whereby the proceeds of an unlawful activity are transacted, thereby making them appear to have originated from legitimate sources." — with Jam Sisante and Amita Legaspi/KBK/RSJ/MRT, GMANews.TV
LOADING CONTENT