Garcia plea to consolidate plunder cases junked

A division of the Sandiganbayan rejected yesterday a request of retired Maj. Gen. Carlos Garcia to combine the forfeiture case against him with the P303.2-million plunder case he and his family are facing in another division.

"To allow consolidation of the two cases would virtually nullify the order of default against the Garcias since they would be allowed to participate in the presentation of evidence," read a nine-page decision of the fourth division written by Justice Jose Hernandez.

Garcia, his wife Clarita and sons Ian Carl, Juan Paolo and Timothy Mark have been declared in default by the court and will no longer be allowed to take part in the plunder trial against them.

The anti-graft court ruled that trying the two cases together would unnecessarily delay the proceedings in the forfeiture case because the plunder case in the second division has not yet started and warrants of arrest have not been issued for the Garcias.

"The present case should end after the government rests its case since the Garcias have already been declared in default," read the decision.

The forfeiture case may be tried separately and proceed independently of any criminal proceeding, the anti-graft court ruled.

Last January, the Sandiganbayan rejected Garcia’s motion to dismiss the plunder case against him.

In a 17-page resolution, the anti-graft court said it was a "fatal error" on the part of Garcia and his lawyer, Constantino de Jesus, to assume that they are entitled to the writ.

"Whether generated by misconception or design, this court shall address this proposition, which in the first place, has no reason for being and should not in the future be advanced under similar procedural scenarios," read the decision.

"Consequently, the… period for the Garcias to file their answer continued to run until the same lapsed without them being able to do so."

The Sandiganbayan also rejected the argument of Garcia’s lawyers that the court had no authority to hear the forfeiture case on the grounds that it was within the jurisdiction of the regional trial court.

"The Garcias’ motion to dismiss (the case) is a mere scrap of paper which… presents no question (that) merits the attention and consideration of the court," read the decision.

The Sandiganbayan warned Garcia that his motion to dismiss had been in "flagrant" violation of the Rules of Court and had been a means of delaying the proceedings.

"While it is true that a litigation is not a game of technicalities, this doesn’t mean that the Rules of Court may be ignored at will and at random to the prejudice of the orderly presentation and assessment of the issues," read the decision.

"It was never intended to forge a bastion for erring litigants to violate the rules with impunity. The liberality in the interpretation and application of the rules applies only in proper cases and under justifiable causes and circumstances."

The Sandiganbayan is empowered to hear the criminal aspect of Republic Act 1379, the Anti Ill-Gotten Wealth Law, as well as in its civil aspect to seize the Garcias’ questionable assets in favor of the government, the anti-graft court added.