Raps filed vs Sandigan justices in Garcia plea deal

A group led by former Akbayan Rep. Risa Hontiveros-Baraquel on Wednesday asked the Department of Justice (DOJ) to investigate and prosecute members of the Sandiganbayan who approved the plea bargaining agreement between the Office of the Ombudsman and former military comptroller Carlos F. Garcia, an accused plunderer. In a six-page complaint affidavit, the group — also composed of Onward Malinis na Gobyerno (OMG) co-convenor Leah Navarro and retired Brigadier General Danilo Lim — asked Justice Sec. Leila de Lima to hold Associate Justices Edilberto Sandoval, Teresita Diaz-Baldos, and Samuel Martires accountable for their "unjust" decision. They said the justices should be sanctioned for violating Article 206 of the Revised Penal Code when it issued an "unjust interlocutory order." According to the Supreme Court, an order is interlocutory if it does not dispose of a case completely, but leaves something more to be done on its merits. The complainants said the order approving the plea bargain is interlocutory because "it does not dispose of the case completely and left something else to be done by the Second Division." Last May 9, the Sandiganbayan Second Division ruled that it saw no reason why the controversial deal should not be approved. Garcia was facing a P303-million non-bailable plunder suit, but the deal allowed him to plead guilty to two lesser offenses and to post a P60,000 bail on the condition that he will return some P135-million of the amount he allegedly amassed from government funds. Garcia walked free on bail last December even if the plea bargaining agreement was not yet approved. The Sandiganbayan's Second Division, in its resolution, has already addressed imminent criticisms on its decision to favor the plea bargain deal. “We must not be swayed by a public opinion which, no matter how valid and sincere the sentiments may be, is expressed in terms of emotions, if not, from a limited perception and shallow appreciation of the facts.... We would rather tell the truth and be unpopular than be a superstar because we satisfied public opinion by creating half-truths and distortions," the court said. 'Injurious' But in their complaint, Hontiveros, Navarro, and Lim said: "This act of the respondents [Sandiganbayan justices]... is injurious to the Filipino people, runs contrary to our constitutional principles and sends a wrong message that will long reverberate against our morality and reputation as a people, to borrow an author’s words." "We hold the justices of the Sandiganbayan Second Division liable for their unlawful acts and omissions in connection with the approval of the [plea bargaining agreement]. We are thus requesting this Honorable Office to investigate and prosecute the justices to the full extent of the law," they added. The complainants said they filed the complaint because the Office of the Ombudsman was itself party to the allegedly anomalous deal, and thus, no one was left to safeguard public interest in connection with the plea bargain deal. "Corollarily, the Office of the Ombudsman, the institution mandated to prosecute and guard against wrongdoings of public officers failed its mandate in this case. As concerned citizens we need to take the cudgels for our people if our guardians could not protect the people’s interests," they said. They also lashed at Ombudsman special prosecutors who entered into the deal for failing to consult the aggrieved party — in this case, the Armed Forces of the Philippines — when it struck the plea bargaining agreement with Garcia. "This is a highly irregular practice as the Ombudsman or its special prosecutors, arrogated upon themselves the role of prosecutor and offended party at the same time. This cannot be, even common sense will find this wrong. These irregularities could have ended if the justices rejected the PBA. Instead, the justices added some more," said the complainants. They added that the deal violated Section 2, Rule 16 of the Rules of Court, which allows an accused to plead guilty to a lower offense during arraignment (when the charges are read), or after arraignment but before a trial. However, the Sandiganbayan's resolution has 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 made during the trial proper and even after the prosecution has finished its evidence and rested its case," said the anti-graft court. — KBK, GMA News