Aquino given wrong information on Garcia case - Marcelo

MANILA, Philippines - President Aquino was fed with wrong information on the details of the trial of former military comptroller Carlos Garcia.

Former ombudsman Simeon Marcelo and former special prosecutor Dennis Villa-Ignacio told the President in their letter dated Dec. 20, 2010 that government prosecutors had a strong case against the former military general as evidenced by how the Sandiganbayan junked his demurrer to evidence.

“After the prosecution completed the presentation of its evidence and rested its case, Garcia filed a demurrer to evidence in an attempt to have the case dismissed, arguing that the prosecution’s evidence was insufficient to support a guilty verdict,” Marcelo and Villa-Ignacio’s letter read.

“The Sandiganbayan, however, denied his demurrer to evidence, ruling that the prosecution has presented evidence establishing Garcia’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and that on the basis of such evidence Garcia may be convicted, and the identified and levied assets forfeited in favor of the government, unless Garcia would be able to rebut the prosecution’s evidence during his turn to present evidence in his defense,” they said.

Records of the six-year old trial, however, show that the accused never filed such a pleading and that the Sandiganbayan never made such a ruling.

A demurrer to evidence is a pleading filed by an accused after the prosecution completes its presentation of evidence if he thinks that the evidence presented against him is weak.

If a court denies the motion, it means that the prosecution’s evidence is strong but if the court grants it, it means that the prosecution’s evidence is so weak that there is no longer a need for the accused to challenge it.

Garcia, records show, did not file such pleading contrary to what Marcelo and Villa-Ignacio have told the President.

The Sandiganbayan had planned to issue a decision twice already based on the Second Division’s court calendars but both were postponed.

STAR sources said the promulgation of judgment against Garcia is expected to finally push through within the week or in early January 2011.

Offering to help, both former Ombudsman officials are saying that the plea bargaining agreement (PBA) is illegal and Malacañang can still stop it through the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG).

The Sandiganbayan’s January 2010 decision junking Garcia’s petition for bail supposedly hints of how strong or weak the prosecution’s evidence against the accused really was.

STAR sources, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said the “three against two” ruling reflected how five magistrates of the anti-graft court, halfway through the trial, were not in agreement as to whether government lawyers had an airtight case.

Records show that presiding Justice Edilberto Sandoval himself, chairman of the Sandiganbayan Second Division, voted to grant Garcia’s petition for bail resulting in a two against one vote.

Because of his dissenting opinion, which went against that of Associate Justices Samuel Martires and Teresita Diaz-Baldos, a Special Division of Five, pursuant to the rules, was formed which resulted in three votes to deny and two votes to grant.

The additional two justices voted differently as Associate Justice Roland Jurado voted to deny bail while Associate Justice Alex Quiroz voted to grant the same.

The prosecution filed a motion for reconsideration, which has not been resolved up to now.

STAR sources said the petition for bail ruling was among the circumstances considered when the Office of the Special Prosecutor (OSP) entered into PBA with Garcia in order to secure a conviction to the lesser offenses of indirect bribery and facilitating money laundering.