Sandiganbayan approves plea bargain deal with Garcia

(Updated 6:36 p.m.) The Sandiganbayan has approved the plea bargaining agreement of former military comptroller Maj. Gen. Carlos F. Garcia with the Office of the Ombudsman, which allowed him to plead guilty to two lesser offenses and to post bail despite a P303-million plunder case filed against him. In a 22-page resolution promulgated on Monday, the anti-graft court's Second Division said: "After assessing the totality of the testimonial and documentary evidence presented by the prosecution, the Court has found the same to be weak in order to support the allegations contained in the equally weak Information for plunder. Suffice it to say that the evidence presented by the prosecution is not enough to convict accused General Garcia of plunder." The resolution, written by Associate Justice Teresita Diaz-Baldos, said that the Sandiganbayan found no reason why the deal should not be approved. "Inasmuch as the provisions of the plea bargaining agreement and the concerns of this Court about the protection of the Government having been already fully addressed, there is no reason why this Court should withhold approval of the plea bargaining agreement in these cases," it said. A Sandiganbayan source said the plea bargaining deal was approved because Garcia was able to comply with the conditions to make the plea bargaining agreement valid. One of the conditions was to return P135 million of the P303 million he allegedly stole from the coffers of the Armed Forces of the Philippines. The plea bargain agreement is an offshoot of the P303-million plunder complaint filed against Garcia by former Ombudsman Simeon Marcelo. However, the Ombudsman's Office of the Special Prosecutor under his successor, Merceditas Gutierrez struck a plea bargaining agreement with Garcia that allowed the former military officer to plead guilty to two lesser offenses and post a P60,000 bail that gave him temporary freedom last December. Gutierrez tendered her resignation on April 29, less than two weeks before the scheduled start of her impeachment trial Monday. Her resignation took effect May 6. In January this year, the Office of the Solicitor General asked the anti-graft court to allow it to intervene, in behalf of the Philippine government, in proceedings over the agreement. The OSG urged the Sandiganbayan to suspend proceedings, revoke the bail that allowed Garcia's temporary release, and to nullify or declare null and void the controversial plea bargaining deal. The OSG said Ombudsman’s agreement with Garcia was “entered into without the consent of the offended party," which in this case was the Armed Forces of the Philippines. However, the Sandiganbayan said it did not find any impropriety in the forging of the deal. "On the matter of whether or not the plea bargaining agreement was the result of illegal or immoral suasion, the Court finds that the change of plea was offered by the accused with voluntaries and complete comprehension of its consequences, as he was capably advised by his counsel. There is also reason for the Court to believe that the accused was apprised of all the consequences of his act, and that the same was arrived at after discussion and mature deliberation, as indicated by the signatures on the plea bargaining agreement," the Sandiganbayan said. The Sandiganbayan likewise addressed criticisms that the plea bargaining deal should not have been entered into during the trial proper. "May plea bargaining be recognized even after pre-trial, as in these cases? The court resoundingly answers in the affirmative. Through several rulings rendered by the Honorable Supreme Court, change of plea may also be allowed after the prosecution has already presented its evidence... Sections 1 and 2, Rule 118 of the Rules of Court require plea bargaining to be considered by the trial court at the pre-trial conference. But it may also be ade during the trial proper and even after the prosecution has finished its evidence and rested its case," said the court. A Sandiganbayan source who spoke on condition of anonymity said the Second Division has promulgated two other resolutions on junking:

the Office of the Solicitor General's (OSG) motion to intervene in the legal matter, and

the OSG's motion to have division chair Associate Justice Edilberto Sandoval inhibit himself from the Garcia plunder case. In a text message to GMA News Online, Garcia's counsel, Maricel Capa said that their camp has yet to get a copy of the anti-graft court's ruling. "We have no validation of this news," Capa said. Taken for a ride The decision raised questions on the validity of the controversial deal with Garcia. University of the Philippines (UP) law professor Theodore Te asked why the Sandiganbayan allowed Garcia to be freed on bail in December last year even though the plea bargaining agreement had not yet been approved at that time. "If the Sandiganbayan granted bail without the plea bargaining agreement having been approved, then it granted bail in a non-bailable plunder case and the Solicitor General ought to have questioned that in the Supreme Court directly--not intervened in the Sandiganbayan," Te said in an email to GMA News Online. He further said: "If the Sandiganbayan granted bail based on the plea bargaining having been approved, then in December, why was there a need for the Sandiganbayan to even hear the SolGen's motion to intervene? It could have simply said it has already been granted and that intervention was moot." "I think we have been taken for a ride," he added. Former Akbayan Rep. Risa Hontiveros described the decision as a "major setback in the fight against corruption." In a press statement, she said, "It virtually elevates an obviously one-sided and erroneous agreement to the level of legitimacy and it clears not only Garcia of any wrongdoing but also those who designed the faulty agreement at the Office of the Ombudsman." Prosecutors should resign The ruling was also criticized by legislators. "These prosecutors should resign... it is their incompetence which has resulted to this," Senator Franklin Drilon told reporters at a press briefing. He said the Sandiganbayan's "disappointing but expected" decision was the result of the "gross negligence" of the special prosecutors at the Office of the Ombudsman. Drilon said the government can still bring the matter to the Supreme Court. Senator Francis Escudero, meanwhile, said the OSG should appeal the ruling. "The magnitude of Garcia’s trespasses against foot soldiers and against every tax-paying Filipino cannot be discounted just like that. He belongs in jail," he said in a statement. He likewise urged the Department of Justice and the incoming Ombudsman to pursue the case based on the evidence gathered from the Senate hearings. "Prosecute and send thieves to jail as a way of telling those with evil intents that we mean business in implementing the letters of our laws or recover money, no matter how miniscule it is. We have to draw the line as to what our priority is," he said. Iloilo Rep. Niel Tupas Jr., head of the justice panel at the House of Representatives that investigated the deal earlier this year, said the anti-graft court’s move to approve the agreement was "highly questionable." "It is clear that based on the hearings of the committee on justice that the Garcia plea bargaining agreement is highly irregular. For the Sandiganbayan to approve the deal is a highly questionable action," he said in a text message Monday. Parañaque Rep. Roilo Golez, vice chairperson of the House committee on national defense and security, said the Sandiganbayan's decision may further promote corruption in the military and in the government. "The Sandiganbayan may have just instituted a net profit system for graft and corruption. Rake in a lot, surrender a little, charge some incidental expenses, take the net profit, declare profit sharing and live happily ever after," he said. - with Kim Tan and Andreo C. Calonzo/YA/VVP/KBK, GMA News