SC allows plea bargain on ex-general's plunder case to proceed
MANILA, Philippines — A division of the Supreme Court has lifted the stop order on the Sandiganbayan proceedings on the plea bargaining agreement between former military comptroller Carlos Garcia and the Office of the Ombudsman.
The SC’s Third Division, in a ruling dated Sept. 16, 2020 but only made public recently, dismissed the Office of the Solicitor General’s Petition for Certiorari assailing the Office of the Ombudsman’s ruling that denied their appeal to intervene on Garcia’s case.
“The Temporary Restraining Order enjoining the Sandiganbayan from continuing with the proceedings in Criminal Case Nos. 28107 and SB-09-SRM-0194, both entitled ‘People of the Philippines v. Major General Carlos Garcia,’ and from implementing its December 16, 2010 Resolution approving Major Gen. Carlos F. Garcia’s request for bail, is lifted,” the decision, penned by Associate Justice Marvic Leonen, read.
The SC held that the Sandiganbayan did not commit grave abuse of discretion when it junked the OSG’s motion for intervention.
It also held that the government was rightfully represented by the Office of the Ombudsman in the plunder case, and the OSG “overstepped its bounds” when it insisted on additional representation, for the Armed Forces of the Philippines.
The case
In April 2005, Garcia was charged with plunder for allegedly amassing ill-gotten wealth while he was comptroller of the Armed Forces of the Philippines.
In March 2010, the Ombudsman’s Office of the Special Prosecutor and Garcia filed a joint motion for approval of plea bargaining agreement, approved by then-Ombudsman Merceditas Guttierez.
The plea bargain was one of the issues that led to Guttierez's impeachment in 2011. She resigned as ombudsman before the impeachment complaint could go to trial.
Garcia withdrew his plea of not guilty to a crime of plunder and offered a plea of guilty to the lesser crime of indirect bribery. Under the agreement, Garcia also offered to cede P135 million worth of cash, real and personal properties owned by himself and family in favor of the government.
But in January 2011, the OSG sought to intervene in the case and asserted that it has necessary personality to do so as it has “mandate of promoting and protecting public weal.”
The OSG also said the agreement was entered into without consent of the Armed Forces of the Philippines, which the former claimed was an indispensable party in the plea bargain deal for it to be valid. It added that the agreement had lopsided terms, favoring Garcia.
But the Sandiganbayan denied the OSG’s intervention as it held that “the statutory authority to represent the governmentt in the case lay with the Office of the Ombudsman as it had the primary jurisdiction over the cases cognizable by the Sandiganbayan.”
The anti-graft court also opined that “plunder was a crime against the State, hence, the offended party was the State and not the Armed Forces of the Philippines, which is a part of the State and has no legal personality that is ‘separate and distinct from the State,’” the court ruling read.
The OSG, under Solicitor General Francis Jardeleza, elevated their case to the SC in 2013.
The SC ruling
In resolving the OSG’s petition, the SC division held that the office’s authority to represent the government “is not plenary or all-encompassing.” It said that the Ombudsman generally has the mandate to represent the government in cases with the Ombudsman, while the OSG is allowed to prosecute a case in the anti-graft court in cases involving Marcos ill-gotten wealth.
“The present case does not involve Marcos ill-gotten wealth, thus, the Office of the Ombudsman rightfully represented the government in the plunder case against private respondent Garcia before the Sandiganbayan,” the ruling read.
“To allow the [OSG] to cherry-pick its jurisdiction under the pretext that it believes its intervention is warranted by the greater good and the ends of justice, would be to impliedly give it supervisory powers or even control over other agencies with a similar mandate of representing the government in different courts and fora,” the SC also said.
The high court held that the government was rightfully represented by the Ombudsman on the case, and the OSG “overstepped its bounds by insisting on providing additional representation.”
The SC also said it will “not interfere with the substance of or the wisdom behind the Plea Bargaining Agreement, as that falls squarely within the Office of the Ombudsman’s mandate of investigating and prosecuting erring government employees.” It added it will only confine itself within legal and technical issues on the plea bargaining agreement.
“Considering the prosecution’s failure to prove private respondent Garcia’s guilt for plunder and money laundering beyond reasonable doubt, respondent Sandiganbayan cannot be said to have gravely abused its discretion in approving the assailed Plea Bargaining Agreement,” it added.
- Latest
- Trending
