BACKED BY PALACE, OSG ASKED SANDIGAN TO REVOKE GARCIA BAIL
[PHOTO Courtesy of GMANEWS TV - Ex-AFP Comptroller Carlos Garcia temporarily freed on bail]
MANILA, JANUARY 6, 2011 (STAR) By Aurea Calica and Michael Punongbayan - Backed by Malacañang, the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) asked the Sandiganbayan yesterday to intervene in the case of former military comptroller Carlos Garcia to revoke the bail and plea bargaining agreement he struck with the special prosecutors.
Presidential spokesman Edwin Lacierda said the evidence presented to the Sandiganbayan was based on court records that showed that there was a good chance of proving the allegations of plunder against Garcia, thus there was no need for a plea bargaining agreement.
Deputy presidential spokesperson Abigail Valte made a PowerPoint presentation on how Garcia's wealth supposedly grew at the time he was comptroller of the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP).
Though his office was not directly involved in the case, Solicitor General Jose Anselmo Cadiz stressed before a press briefing in Malacañang the need to intervene to protect the interest of the people.
Based on two grounds alone, Cadiz argued the Sandiganbayan should not have allowed the plea bargaining agreement.
One argument, Cadiz pointed out, was the indirect admissions of Garcia's wife Clarita on the activities of her husband and how he made money from his office.
The PowerPoint presentation showed how Garcia allegedly pocketed funds from the United Nations peacekeeping reimbursements, the US and the Philippines' Balikatan military exercises, procurements and inter-agency seminars and meetings.
There was also evidence that Garcia issued checks to suppliers, who turned out to be his wife and relatives.
The second strong argument, Cadiz added, was that the offended parties such as the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) were not consulted before the plea bargaining agreement was made.
Cadiz also noted that the petition for bail filed by Garcia's lawyer was railroaded, since it was put on the agenda and resolved on the same day.
He said there is a three-day rule to set the motion for hearing and allow the concerned parties to make comment.
No logic
Cadiz filed a 17-page motion for leave to intervene and a 35-page omnibus motion to nullify the plea-bargaining deal before the Sandiganbayan.
Cadiz asserted the right of the OSG to represent the AFP as the offended party in the P303-million plunder case against Garcia.
Cadiz said he could not understand why the Sandiganbayan denied Garcia's petition for bail on Jan. 7 last year on the ground that the evidence was strong, and then in February, the special prosecutors hatched a plea bargaining agreement that became final in May.
Based on the records of the case, the plea bargaining agreement was signed on Feb. 25, 2010 and eventually approved on May 4, 2010 through the grant of a joint motion for approval filed by the prosecution and Garcia's camp on March 16, 2010.
After Garcia was allowed to plead guilty to lesser offenses on Dec. 16, 2010 that led to his release on P60,000 bail two days later, the OSG said the Judge Advocate General's Office (JAGO) of the AFP sought for help in a letter dated Dec. 22, 2010.
The AFP said they are "in the course of studying certain remedies that may be available," which is why they are asking the OSG for guidance on any legal or procedural action that may be pursued to challenge the legality and validity of the deal.
The AFP said they were not even notified of the plea bargaining agreement.
Cadiz though would not comment on the possibility that "something fishy" occurred, but noted the deal was "irregular" and "not right."
In the motion to intervene filed by Cadiz, the OSG claimed "the blatant irregularities in the execution of the plea bargaining agreement and its approval of the Honorable Court without complying with the strictures laid down by the Supreme Court (SC) for the validity of said approval stare the OSG straight in the eye."
"If it allowed this to hold sway, it would amount to a sheer dereliction of duty which it is not wont to do; hence, this proposed intervention in the faithful discharge of such duty consistent with the welfare of the people and as dictated by the ends of justice," the OSG said.
Cadiz told the press briefing in Malacañang that the SC had ruled that evidence must not be "sufficiently strong" for a plea bargain to be considered.
Because of alleged irregularities, an administrative case against the justices of the Sandiganbayan could be filed before the SC while an impeachment complaint could be filed against the Ombudsman for approving the deal, Cadiz said.
He said the SC could "impose the sanctions" if indeed there were irregularities committed in striking the deal with Garcia.
It was not clear how the special prosecutors who drafted the agreement could be punished if they committed any wrongdoing.
Cadiz said they decided to intervene in the case although belatedly, so as not to be accused by people that the government is allowing the agreement between Garcia and the special prosecutors to push through when the money he allegedly misused consisted of public funds.
He said they would also see if they could ask the justices handling the case to inhibit themselves in the interest of fairness.
"We cannot just abandon the interests of our people, the Republic of the Philippines and the Armed Forces of the Philippines," Cadiz said.
In the motion filed before the Sandiganbayan, Cadiz argued the Rules of Court stated that the consent of the offended party is needed in entering into a plea bargain deal.
This means the AFP should have been informed because the funds allegedly misused by Garcia belonged to the military organization, which was upheld by the Sandiganbayan itself when it denied the petition for bail on Jan. 7, 2010.
The OSG said the Republic of the Philippines, specifically the AFP, is the offended party "whose consent is indispensable to the validity of the plea bargain agreement."
The OSG said the very approval of the plea bargaining agreement "is devoid of legal basis" because the court "did not make any assessment or evaluation of the evidence presented by the prosecution as basis for its approval."
This means that acceptance of the deal is "improper and irregular" based on the SC ruling in the case of People vs. Villarama, Cadiz pointed out.
The OSG explained that the plea bargaining agreement was allowed even as there was a standing ruling by the Sandiganbayan of strong evidence against Garcia based on its decision to deny the bail petition.
While it is true that a deal can be made even after the prosecution already presented evidence during the trial, Cadiz said this is allowed only "when the prosecution does not have sufficient evidence to establish guilt of the accused of the crime charged," citing the SC decision on People vs. Mamarion.
The OSG pointed out the government lawyers themselves "essentially argued that the evidence of guilt is strong" when they opposed Garcia's motion for reconsideration of the anti-graft court's ruling denying bail.
"Indeed, the plea bargaining agreement is effectively a compromise agreement for the convenience of the accused Garcia. It accorded him the benefit of not just a lighter sentence, but also the eventual dismissal of all the other cases against him," the OSG motion said.
Cadiz stressed the cases against Garcia and his family before the Sandiganbayan are important because once dismissed, they could use this decision to dismiss the complaints filed against them in the US.
He said Garcia would already be free if only the charges of indirect bribery and violation of the Anti-Money Laundering Law would be considered because the former general had been in jail for six years already, or the amount of time he would serve if convicted of these two lesser offenses.
"How can this be explained to the people? The people will be enraged," Cadiz said.
'Not the biggest fish'
President Aquino vowed to exert all effort to stop Garcia from walking away from the charges against him and his family.
Garcia, his wife Clarita, and three sons are facing criminal charges, including plunder, for supposedly amassing about P300 million while in service as AFP comptroller.
Two of Garcia's sons, Juan Paulo and Ian Carl, were also charged with bulk cash smuggling for allegedly trying to sneak in $100,000 into the US. The brothers allegedly hid the money in their luggage and made false statements to US customs officers.
In 2005, Garcia was convicted and sentenced to two years hard labor by a military court-martial with dishonorable discharge from the service.
The Ombudsman has accepted a plea bargain agreement offered by Garcia wherein he would plead guilty to the lesser offenses of direct bribery and money laundering.
The agreement also allowed Garcia to return only P135 million of the P303 million he allegedly stole from state coffers.
Sen. Antonio Trillanes IV said Ombudsman Merceditas Gutierrez should be blamed for accepting the plea bargain agreement.
"The problem with what happened in the plea bargain is the Ombudsman and we need to look at that matter," Trillanes said.
Senate Minority Leader Alan Peter Cayetano suggested the buck might not stop with Garcia.
He said Garcia is the key in identifying the other people involved in the plunder of AFP funds.
"I don't believe that he could have amassed P300 million or thereabouts without giving some of the money to the higher ups," Cayetano said.
"Let's not look at him as if he is the big fish. He's quite a big fish but he's not the biggest fish. Let him identify the others who collected money," he added.
Cayetano said the probe into the alleged plunder should not end with Garcia and his move to enter into a plea bargaining agreement with in order to avoid being convicted of plunder.
Cayetano said he would file a resolution in the Senate calling for an inquiry into how the plea bargaining agreement came about.
"I am in favor that one of the Senate committees, be it the Blue Ribbon committee or the committee on defense, to take a look into what happened. This will not be covered by the gag order because this will be in aid of legislation. If ever there was a need for legislation it is now," Cayetano said.
He said the plea bargaining process is a relatively new method in criminal procedure.
Cayetano said the people must know if the process was followed and if any laws were violated when the agreement was made.
"What we have to see is the legality, the morality, the process, the system of plea bargaining in our country," he said. – With Alexis Romero, Marvin Sy
Related Report From The Tribune
Garcia plea bargain deal approved in May — Solgen By Aytch S. de la Cruz 01/06/2011
The Sandiganbayan has issued a resolution accepting the plea bargain between prosecutors and former military comptroller Maj. Gen. Carlos Garcia as early as May 4, 2010, the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) yesterday revealed.
Solicitor General Jose Anselmo Cadiz also informed reporters that his office has already filed a 17-page Urgent Motion for Leave to Intervene and a 34-page Omnibus Motion-in-Intervention in a bid to nullify and set aside the resolution granting the plea bargain agreement which was filed on March 16, 2010 through "Joint Motion for Approval of Plea Bargaining Agreement" of the accused and Office of the Special Prosecutor (OSP).
The OSG stressed that the May 4, 2010 resolution of the Sandiganbayan Second Division headed by Presiding Justice
Edilberto Sandoval granting the plea bargaining agreement of Garcia and the OSP of the Office of the Ombudsman should be nullified on the ground that the evidence against Garcia was strong.
Cadiz and Malacañang officials cited records they have culled from the courts including the P200-million check signed by Garcia to emphasize that evidence of guilt was strong against the erstwhile financial manager of the AFP on charges of plunder.
In the presentation shown by deputy presidential spokesman Abigail Valte to reporters, it was learned that Garcia has allegedly stolen money amounting to millions from the UN Peacekeeping Reimburse-ments, US-RP Balikatan Expenses, Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) Procurements and other Interagency Transfers.
Cadiz complained at how the Sandiganbayan suddenly paid no attention to the strong pieces of evidence the prosecution had against Garcia in May 4, 2010 when it released a resolution approving the plea bargaining agreement hatched by the Ombudsman and the special prosecutor that handled the case.
"The Sandiganbayan earlier ruled that the evidence of guilt wasstrong (against Garcia). Only four-and-a-half months before in January (last year), in the resolution of the Sandiganbayan approving the plea bargaining agreement, it kept silent on the strength of the evidence," Cadiz noted.
Also, Cadiz mentioned that neither the government nor the AFP has been informed by the Ombudsman and the Sandiganbayan with respect to that plea bargaining agreement as well as the second petition for bail filed by Garcia that was eventually approved by the attending court.
Cadiz added, it was learned that such petition for bail was filed, tried and approved by the Sandiganbayan all in the same day, Dec. 16, in violation of the court's general three-day notice rule.
"The rules of court said that you can only waive the three-day rule for good cause. Is this good cause for General Garcia? What about the Republic of the Philippines? So even in the petition for bail itself, in the motion filed, there was no notice of hearing, again, in violation of the rules of court," Cadiz said.
He admitted that, essentially, their attempt to intervene on this particular case despite the fact that such is not within the purview of the executive branch is geared toward giving the Sandiganbayan a chance to rectify itself.
The anti-graft court would be risking its credibility should it decide to reject the motion for intervention being sought by the government, Cadiz implied, describing such possibility as a "very sad day" for the Filipino people.
"We are pleading to the Sandiganbayan to take a second look at this plea bargaining agreement. The entire nation is watching us and we hope the Sandiganbayan would feel that the plea bargaining agreement they approved last May 4 was utterly wrong," Cadiz stressed.
"I think the people will be angered if the Sandiganbayan will not rectify this resolution. That is why we are filing this motion for intervention because we give a chance to the court to rectify itself. You know, all of us make mistakes, no one is perfect," he added.
The agreement reportedly allowed Garcia to return to the government some P150 million believed to be ill-gotten in exchange for pleading guilty to a lesser offense instead of plunder which is punishable by life imprisonment.
As a result, Garcia was released from prison after posting bail for P60,000 or P30,000 each of the offense of direct bribery and violation of the anti-money laundering law last December 17.
Apart from the legal recourse they have taken, Cadiz also welcomed suggestions to possibly request Presiding Justice Edilberto Sandoval to inhibit himself once the Sandiganbayan responds to their petitions.
Furthermore, Cadiz expressed that they might also call on the Supreme Court (SC) to impose administrative sanctions on those special prosecutors and justices who participated in the alleged anomalous plea bargaining deal.
"The Sandiganbayan is under the Supreme Court so this can be brought to the Supreme Court for its attention and probably we can ask the Supreme Court to impose administrative sanctions against those concerned. As regards to the Ombudsman and special prosecutor, since they are an independent commission, then a concerned citizen can file, again, another impeachment case against the personalities at the Ombudsman," Cadiz said.
The OSG, meanwhile, welcomed the statement reportedly issued by SC spokesman and administrator Jose Midas Marquez to just lodge their complaints before the high court but Cadiz said they would rather follow the normal procedure than take the easy way out.
"We are very thankful to the Supreme Court for that statement. But, you know, we are following the normal procedure here and the normal procedure is to fix the problem where it started," Cadiz stressed.
When asked to gauge their chances at getting a favorable decision from the anti-graft court now that so many things have already happened before they could have been prevented, Cadiz expressed: "We cannot simply abandon what is the duty of the Republic of the Philippines in this particular instance and no matter how difficult it is or no matter as some people say the chances are not great, we have to do this and we have to fight at this particular venue because, I think, we cannot just abandon the interests of our people, the Republic of the Philippines and the Armed Forces of the Philippines."
Sen. Alan Peter Cayetano, for his part, urged the concerned Senate committees to investigate the reason the Office of the Ombudsman agreed to enter into plea bargain with Garcia.
"This plea bargain would serve as bad precedent because it might be used by others to escape plunder cases filed against them," he stressed.
Cayetano said the Senate committees on justice and national defense and security both headed by Sen. Francis Escudero or the blue ribbon chaired by Sen. Teofisto Guingona III can hold inquiry into the controversy.
"These committees can scrutinize these plea bargain in aid of legislation," he added. Angie M. Rosales and PNA
EARLIER NEWS REPORT From GMANEWS TV 12/17/2010 | 11:57 AM Share (Updated 4:46 p.m.)
Sandiganbayan allows bail for ex-AFP comptroller
A day after pleading guilty to a lesser offense, former military comptroller Maj. Gen. Carlos Garcia may be released in time for the holidays.
Radio dzBB's Rowena Salvacion reported Friday the Sandiganbayan's Second Division allowed Garcia to post a bail of P60,000, after it accommodated the request filed on Thursday by the defendant's lawyers.
Copies of the release order were to be given to Garcia's lawyers and the Philippine National Police Custodial Center in Camp Crame where Garcia is detained, the report said.
Garcia pleaded guilty to lesser offenses in the two cases he is facing before the Sandiganbayan.
He entered the guilty plea to direct bribery and Section 4-B of the Anti-Money Laundering Act (AMLA) on Thursday.
During his arraignment, Garcia pleaded not guilty to the charges of plunder and violation of AMLA's Sec. 4-A.
Plunder is a non-bailable capital offense punishable by reclusion perpetua. Direct bribery, on the other hand, is punishable by six years to 12 years imprisonment under the Revised Penal Code of the Philippines.
Reached for comment, the military said it was respecting the court's decision.
"Whatever the court has decided, that's part of the judicial system. That's our justice system. If it's the law, it's the law. Nandoon na sa korte ang final say eh," said Armed Forces vice chief of staff Lt. Gen. Reynaldo Mapagu.
Mapagu added that Garcia's temporary freedom does not mean that the former comptroller's legal battle has ended. "Bail pa lang naman iyon. Hindi pa tapos ang kaso. Nag-plead guilty nga siya pero tuloy pa rin ang litigation."
Mapagu said that in the end, the AFP is still hoping that the Sandiganbayan "would make a good judgement on the case. We still want justice to be served."
'Ill-gotten wealth'
In 2003, Garcia was accused of amassing P303.27 million in ill-gotten wealth while in active service with the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP).
His wife Clarita and sons Ian Carl, Timothy Mark and Juan Carlo are co-accused in the two cases.
Charges of violations of the AMLA were filed against the Garcias after graft investigators found out that they have a total deposit of P303.27 million and withdrawal of P73 million, and a total of $967, 215.99 in at least 10 banks, which investigators said constituted "unlawful activity" punishable under Republic Act 9160 because the funds involved were proceeds of plunder.
Investigators also noted that in 2003, Garcia declared in his statement of assets, liabilities and net worth (SALN) P2.76 million in total asset.
In December 2005, Garcia was convicted by a general court martial for having undeclared wealth. The court martial also dismissed him from military service and sentenced him to two years of hard labor.
The government is now working to have Garcia's wife and children extradited from the United States.
The Garcias are also named defendants in two forfeiture cases still on trial at the anti-graft court's Fourth Division. — with Mark Merueñas/LBG/RSJ, GMANews.TV
----------------------------------------------------------
© Copyright, 2011 by PHILIPPINE HEADLINE NEWS ONLINE
All rights reserved
----------------------------------------------------------
PHILIPPINE HEADLINE NEWS ONLINE [PHNO] WEBSITE
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Follow us on Twitter: http://twitter.com/phnotweet
This is the PHILIPPINE HEADLINE NEWS ONLINE (PHNO) Mailing List.
To stop receiving our news items, please send a blank e-mail addressed to: phno-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
Please visit our homepage at: http://www.newsflash.org/
(c) Copyright 2009. All rights reserved.
-------------------------------------------------------------
