Interpol help eyed for Gen. Garcia’s missing kin - report

The Office of the Ombudsman is eyeing the assistance of the Internal Police Criminal Organization (Interpol) in locating the wife and children of retired Major Gen. Carlos F. Garcia, who were reported missing since the court indicted them for plunder in 2006. Radio dzBB reported on Friday that the prosecution arm of the Office of the Ombudsman has started verifying reports on the disappearance of Garcia’s family and will ask help from the Interpol, if they won’t be able to find the retired general’s kin. The Interpol is an organization facilitating international police cooperation, focusing on public safety, terrorism, organized crime, war crimes, illicit drug production, drug trafficking, weapons smuggling, trafficking in human beings, money laundering, child pornography, white-collar crime, computer crime, and corruption. Madrid and Associates, counsel for Garcia’s wife and children earlier asked the Sandiganbayan Second Division to be allowed to withdraw its representation for the said defendants after losing contact with them. Lawyers Rainier L. Madrid and Alvin A. Carullo, said the law firm could no longer effectively handle the defense of Clarita Depakakibo-Garcia and Ian Carl, Juan Paulo and Timothy Mark Garcia because they have disappeared shortly after they were indicted for plunder by the Office of the Ombudsman on April 6, 2005. Garcia was accused of amassing P303.27 million ill-gotten wealth during his active service in the military while his wife and children were implicated for allegedly acting as conduits, helping him conceal his loot. The whole family is also named defendants in two ill-gotten wealth lawsuits pending before the Sandiganbayan Fourth Division. In a resolution released last June 2, the Second Division denied Madrid and Associates’ motion to withdraw from the case but did not cite a specific ground merely referring to “circumstances obtaining". The defense lawyers, however, sought a reconsideration noting that their basis for withdrawal is covered by Rule 22.01 (g) of the Code of Professional Responsibility allowing a lawyer to decline rendering further legal service on the client’s refusal to have any contact with counsel. “Undersigned counsel have lost contact with their clients and despite diligent efforts, they have failed to locate accused Clarita D. Garcia et. al., much less come to know their whereabouts. Indeed, without contact with their clients, undersigned counsel would be ineffective to advance cause and interest of their clients," they said. The law firm also submitted a copy of the April 16 resolution of the Second Division of the Supreme Court, which granted their motion to withdraw as counsel for Clarita Garcia in G.R. No. 174386 “Clarita Depakakibo Garcia vs. Sandiganbayan (Second Division) et. al. for exactly the same reason. “Undersigned counsel therefore have good cause or justifiable reason to withdraw their appearance as counsel for accused Clarita D. Garcia et al in the above case," it said. - GMANews.TV