Noy to solgen: Stop Garcia plea bargain

MANILA, Philippines - The Palace is set to intervene in the Sandiganbayan case against former military comptroller Carlos Garcia in a bid to stop a plea bargaining deal that allowed the retired general to plead guilty to lesser offenses and post bail for his liberty.

Solicitor General Joel Cadiz said they are preparing to file a motion to intervene with the second division of the Sandiganbayan in a last-ditch effort to stop the agreement.

“The instructions of the President are clear: we will try to stop that deal, we will try to undo it,” Cadiz said in an interview.

He said the administration of President Aquino firmly believes that the plea-bargaining deal is illegal, citing as reason an earlier admission by the prosecution panel that the evidence for the plunder case against Garcia was strong.

He said the Sandiganbayan should not approve the deal since “the case was deep into trial already.”

Rule 116, Section 2 of the Rules of Court provides that an accused may only plead to a lesser offense before the start of the trial.

In the event of a Sandiganbayan rejection of the OSG’s plea for the voiding of the deal, Cadiz said they might elevate the case to the Supreme Court.

“It depends on what the Sandiganbayan will say. Let us see if this thing works because there is no official decision yet. The proper venue is still the Sandiganbayan,” he explained.

Garcia walked out of detention last Dec.18 after posting P60,000 bail.

In the plea bargain deal with government prosecutors, Garcia pleaded guilty to direct bribery and to violation of the anti-money laundering law. Garcia was originally charged with the capital offense of plunder for allegedly acquiring more than P300 million in unexplained wealth in 2004 when he was Armed Forces comptroller in 2004.

His wife, Clarita, and children Ian Carl, Juan Paulo and Timothy Clark, who had all fled to the United States, were also included in the case.

Garcia is expected to receive his jail sentence for direct bribery and money laundering before the Sandiganbayan this week.

Offer of help

In its effort to have the plea bargaining deal trashed, the government may get help from former Ombudsman Simeon Marcelo and former Special Prosecutor Dennis Villa-Ignacio.

Marcelo and Villa-Ignacio made the offer in a letter to President Aquino dated Dec. 20. 

“We believe, Your Excellency, that the corrupt and illegal plea bargain with Garcia may still be unwound and nullified,” their letter read. “Those responsible should be dutifully prosecuted,” they said.

The two said the plea bargaining deal “is riddled with fatal flaws” and “is grossly disadvantageous to the government.” They said the deal was forged “with manifest partiality which would cause undue injury to the government.”

Marcelo and Villa-Ignacio said President Aquino’s consent should have been sought, considering that the AFP is the offended party and he is the commander-in-chief.

“Thus, Your Excellency’s consent should have been secured by the Office of the Ombudsman before entering into the subject plea bargaining agreement. On a larger context, the offended party is the People, especially in the light of Your Excellency’s cornerstone election promise against corruption and the daang matuwid (straight path),” they stressed.

Stressing that the prosecution had enough evidence to convict the former military general of plunder, Marcelo and Villa-Ignacio said the plea bargaining deal comes as “a sordid shocker that is nothing short of a betrayal of the public trust, and a reversal of whatever gains the nation may have had in its fight against graft and corruption.”

“The plea bargain entered into by the Office of the Ombudsman through the Office of the Special Prosecutor (OSP) with Garcia is illegal and in contravention of law and the Rules of Court,” they added.

Despite the initial setback, “the situation is not totally lost,” according to Marcelo and Villa-Ignacio.

They said “a swift and determined concrete action is expected from a leadership that has declared itself to be the sworn enemy of midnight deals and crooked means, of grafters and corrupt officers, and of abuses and injustice.”

Marcelo and Villa-Ignacio said the OSG “in his capacity as Tribune of the People, may be put to task to lead the charge against this unholy cabal. We believe that given this administration’s policy of transparency and commitment to good governance, the Office of the Ombudsman has abdicated its authority in this case to represent the People of the Philippines.”

“In fact, what the Special Prosecutor did (apparently with the approval of the Ombudsman), who incidentally is a literal midnight appointee of your predecessor, was to betray and exactly go against the announced platform and policies of this administration,” they said.

Stronger case vs Mercy

The plea bargain agreement could strengthen the impeachment case against Ombudsman Merceditas Gutierrez, Rep. Teddy Casiño of Bayan Muna said.

“Nothing in the Constitution or the rules prohibits it. Technically, until the articles of impeachment are approved, the complaint can be amended,” he said.

“We tried this before during the impeachment proceedings against then President Arroyo but her allies outvoted us. Again, this will boil down to political will and getting the numbers,” he said.

Malacañang has urged Gutierrez to explain her prosecutors’ decision to enter into a plea bargain agreement with Garcia despite a strong government case against the former military comptroller.

Admission of guilt

For former Armed Forces chief and now Muntinlupa City Rep. Rodolfo Biazon, the plea bargain deal was a tacit admission that Garcia was guilty of plunder.

Biazon also said Garcia’s case was a vindication of the rebel soldiers’ show of protest against high-level corruption in the military during the Arroyo administration.

“What happened to Gen. Garcia was also a vindication of the exercise of (former Navy officer and now senator Antonio) Trillanes and his group because if you remember, Trillanes and his group were fighting against corruption in the military,” Biazon said.

“That plea bargain is a big blow to the morale of the soldiers. This offer of returning P135 million of the P300 million is a tacit admission that plunder was committed,” Biazon said.

He said he had already filed a resolution seeking an investigation into the plea bargain.

Meanwhile, AFP spokesman Gen. Jose Mabanta said Garcia’s alleged wrongdoing would no longer be repeated under the current organizational structure in the office of the comptroller.

“Unlike before, the comptroller family of the AFP is completely divided and chopped into smaller offices for check and balance purposes,” Mabanta said. 

The plea-bargaining deal has also drawn criticism from retired archbishop Oscar Cruz.

“The lesson it leaves behind is very, very odious and unpalatable. So this is the way we do things in the country now. You steal and you steal and then all of a sudden you say well, I’m sorry. You keep the part. I get a part and bye-bye. I don’t think that is the way of justice or the mandate of common sense. Even just a play of common understanding will say something is not right there,” Cruz said.

In defense of prosecutors

Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile, for his part, defended the Ombudsman’s agreeing to a plea bargain deal, saying it’s within its powers under the law. He also said it’s also Aquino’s right to question the agreement.

“It’s in the law. What can we do? We copied it from the Americans - the plea bargain, the pre-trial conference. That’s why the system is like this,” Enrile said in Filipino.

On Aquino’s declaration that he wanted the plea bargain voided, Enrile said “that is within his right.”

“The President is the top soldier of the country, the top executive of the country, the top policeman of the country and he is the top prosecutor of the country. He can say ‘I do not agree with your decision’,” Enrile said.

But he stressed the President cannot reverse any decision by the courts.

“The President cannot reverse it because you are already dealing with the Bill of Rights,” the Senate president said.

“What he was questioning was the action of the prosecutor in agreeing to that plea of a lower offense. He is not criticizing the decision of the court. You can criticize the court for as long as the language is not vulgar, not abrasive. It has to be a civil expression of an opinion,” he said. With Jess Diaz, Michael Punongbayan, Christina Mendez, Evelyn Macairan, Jaime Laude