Ombudsman asks Sandigan to junk Garcia plea bargain

(Updated 9:57 p.m.) New Ombudsman Conchita Carpio-Morales on Friday asked the Sandiganbayan Second Division to nullify the plea bargain deal former military comptroller Major General Carlos Garcia had forged with her predecessor, and to set aside its May 9 resolution barring the participation of the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) in the plunder and money laundering cases against Garcia, his wife Clarita and children Ian Carl, Juan Paulo and Timothy Mark. The Ombudsman’s move came on the same day Garcia was arrested by the military for a 2005 conviction for violating Articles of War 96, or conduct unbecoming an officer and a gentleman; and Articles of War 97, or conduct prejudicial to good order and military discipline. The charges stemmed from Garcia’s alleged mis-declaration of his Statement of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth for 2002 and 2003 and for possession of US permanent resident status even though he was still in the active service. Garcia retired in November 2004. The charges are distinct from the ones filed against Garcia before the Sandiganbayan. Initially detained at the Intelligence Service, Armed Force of the Philippines (ISAFP) compound in Camp Aguinaldo, Garcia was then transferred to the New Bilibid Prison in Muntinlupa City.
Strong evidence vs. Garcias "Since the prosecution had not rested its case, it was premature to conclude that the evidence against the accused was weak," Morales said in her 18-page position paper. The Ombudsman disputed three key points in the Sandiganbayan ruling that:

• government’s evidence against the Garcias in the plunder case was weak and insufficient;
• the OSG has no authority to intervene in the case in behalf of the Armed Forces; and
• the validity of the anti-graft court’s basis in approving of plea bargain deal.

Morales noted that the Sandiganbayan has yet to render a ruling on the prosecution’s June 2009 offer of exhibits, hence government can still present additional evidence against Garcia. “As the Plea Bargaining Agreement [PBA] received by the court of March 16, 2010 clearly states, the submission of the PBA for the Court’s consideration and approval was made ‘after the prosecution (was) about to rest its case.’ Therefore, since the prosecution has not rested its case, it was premature to conclude that the evidence against the accused was weak," Morales pointed out. OSG can represent AFP The Ombudsman also argued in favor of allowing the OSG to help in prosecuting the cases against the Garcia family. Morales said Section 35 of the Administrative Code of 1987 vested the OSG with “very broad and vast powers and functions," such that the said office was described as the “the law office of the Government… to represent it before any court, tribunal or commission in any matter, action of proceeding." “There can be no matter that ‘affects the welfare of the people as the ends of justice may require more than the successful prosecution of a case for plunder and the obtention of real justice, especially for the Republic of the Philippines and the entire Filipino people," she said. While conceding the Supreme Court has upheld the vast powers of the Ombudsman to investigate and prosecute, Morales contended that this did not preclude the OSG from exercising its powers and prerogative to intervene in the case. She said the Sandiganbayan’s pronouncement that the OSG cannot intervene in the Garcia trials “would judicially repeal" subsection 11 of Section 35 of the Administrative Code. ‘Compromise’ admissible vs. accused On the validity of the plea bargain deal, Morales agreed that the Office of the Special Prosecutor had the power and authority to enter into such agreement which, she said was in the nature of a compromise agreement. Because of this, she said the contents of Garcia’s plea bargain offer are admissible against him. “(I)n criminal cases, …a mere offer of compromise by the accused may be received in evidence against him. By the terms of the impugned PBA, the accused Maj. Gen. Garcia owned and admitted to having amassed, accumulated or acquired, by himself and/or his co-accused, all members of his immediate family, ill-gotten wealth in the total amount of P135,433,387,84," the Ombudsman said. “This total amount is clearly more than two times and nearly three times the minimal aggregate amount of P50,000,000 mentioned under Section 2 of RA 7080 (Plunder Law)," she added. The actions of the prosecution team that handled the plunder and money laundering cases against the Garcias did not escape comment from Ombudsman Morales. “The undersigned asks, was there any earnest effort to pursue the extradition cases in the United States against Mrs. Garcia and her three sons — co-accused in the cases at bar? The Office of the Special Prosecutor and/or perhaps the Offices concerned in the extradition cases pending in the United States can offer enlightenment," Morales said. Garcia, in and out In December last year, Garcia got his temporary freedom when he was allowed to post a P60,000-bail after pleading to lesser offenses of facilitation of money laundering and direct bribery, instead of plunder. Last May, the Sandiganbayan approved the plea bargaining agreement between Garcia and 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. — RSJ/MRT/VS, GMA News