GMA Brandtalk
Tracking
Archives
House panel recommends dismissal, raps vs state prosecutors in Garcia case
A House of Representatives committee is recommending to President Benigno Aquino III the dismissal and filing of charges against the state prosecutors who were involved in the plea bargain agreement with former military comptroller Maj. Gen. Carlos Garcia, who is facing plunder charges. In a resolution dated February 22, the House committee on justice asked for the dismissal of special prosecutor Wendell Sulit and the filing of appropriate charges against deputy special prosecutors Roberto Kallos and Jesus Micael, and assistant special prosecutors Jose Balmeo Jr. and Joseph Capistrano. GMA News Online tried to contact Sulit through her mobile phone but she was not answering. Her secretary told GMA News Online in a phone call that her boss was in a meeting as of posting time. But in a press conference last Jan. 13, Sulit denied that there were irregularities in the plea bargain deal. “Wala kaming binulsa… Ginagawa kaming napakarumi rito sa Office of the Ombudsman… Strategy yan pero always nasa isip namin yung kapakanan ng gobyerno hindi yung bulsa namin," she said in the briefing. (We didn’t pocket anything. We are being painted black here at the Office of the Ombudsman… We followed a stratagem but always, what was foremost in our minds was the government’s interest, not our own.) The panel cited Section 8 of Republic Act 6770 or the Ombudsman Act of 1989, which says that the special prosecutor may be removed from office by the President for any of the grounds provided for the removal of the Ombudsman. Under Section 2, Article XI of the 1987 Constitution, the grounds for the removal of the Ombudsman from office are "culpable violation of the Constitution, treason, bribery, graft and corruption, other high crimes, or betrayal of public trust." The committee said that Sulit manifested "gross inexcusable negligence, ignorance of the law and lack of professionalism" when she repeatedly failed to answer simple questions on evidence, procedure and other legal matters relevant to the plea bargaining agreement. It likewise said that Sulit, her deputies, and assistants also displayed "gross inexcusable negligence and dereliction of duty" when they:
- - prosecuted only the case against Garcia based on the evidence collected by the team of former Ombudsman Simeon Marcelo; - continued to defend the validity of the plea bargaining agreement; - violated Section 2, Rule 116 of the Rules of Court by not securing the consent of the offended party prior to the agreement; - raised the issue of spousal disqualification and marital privilege with respect to the written statements of Garcia's wife Clarita which directly implicate the accused; - "weakened" the case for the prosecution by "contradicting, ignoring, and abandoning" favorable rulings made by the Sandiganbayan when they declared that the evidence against Garcia was "weak"; - took "inconsistent and contradictory positions" when they submitted a joint motion for approval of the plea bargaining agreement and then opposed the motion for reconsideration filed by Garcia three days later; - "failed or refused" to look for and present to the court various contractors and suppliers allegedly in collusion with Garcia; - "failed" to call and present as witnesses various persons mentioned by former state auditor Heidi Mendoza in her audit report; and - called on five witnesses from the Armed Forces accounting division who contradicted the statements of Mendoza and exonerated Garcia.
