Wife’s avowals used in Garcia plunder suit

On Mar. 15 eleven lawyers charged Maj. Gen. Carlos Garcia with plundering P143 million. Two weeks ahead Ombudsman investigators already filed a similar suit, albeit bigger at P285 million. That first plunder case was based on Garcia’s own Statements of Assets and Liabilities, and wife Clarita’s admissions of how they illegally enriched themselves. Clarita is impleaded, along with their sons Ian Carl, Juan Paulo and Timothy Mark. For, plunder is defined as a public official amassing at least P50 million in ill-gotten wealth, in connivance with family members or other confederates, through a series or combination criminal acts.

In filing the complaint, Maria Elena Olivia Roxas of the Ombudsman Field Investigation Office noted the following:

"Garcia, married to Clarita Depakakibo and father to three sons of legal age, was AFP comptroller from Mar. 2001 to Apr. 2004.

"Based on his SALs for 1993-2003, Garcia earned total income of P4,382,117.86 from government and other sources. His declared net worth in 1993 was P698,780. Total family expenses in 1994-2003 amounted to P1,804,450. Deducting expenses from income in 1994-2003, Garcia would have accumulated savings of P2,574,987.01. Add to this his 1993 net worth, Garcia would have had P3,273,767.01 in disposable funds with which he legitimately could have acquired additional assets and property. Beyond this amount, any property or asset can only be ill-gotten.

Roxas then added up Garcia’s known assets, based on three earlier complaints against the general:

"In the first complaint of Sept. 24, 2004, from reports of then-attaché David Meisner of the US Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Garcia’s sons Ian Carl and Juan Paulo were found to have smuggled into America an undeclared $100,000. Too, ICE records showed that the Garcia spouses had transported to the US at least $500,000 since 1993. ICE agents also found evidence that the Garcias own two condo units it New York and a house in Ohio, all told worth $1.42 million. Philippine records also showed P47 million in real estate holdings, for a total wealth of P125 million (at an exchange rate of P55:$1).

"In the second case of Oct. 21, 2004, arising from the freeze order on the Garcia family’s many bank deposits, the Court of Appeals was able to seize P51,474,228.75. By the time the order was issued, the banks reported, the Garcias already had withdrawn P72,238,493.65 from peso and dollar accounts, bringing their total cash hoard to P123,712,722.40.

"In the third case of Feb. 18, 2005 involving the garnishment of land and other holdings, P29,107,268.30 was held (P15,049,791.93 in real estate and P14,057,476.37 in deposits with an Army cooperative).

"Two more lots in Batangas, worth P7.4 million in the name of Juan Paulo, was discovered with the Registry of Deeds.

All told, the Garcias held P285,219,990.70 in assets. Deducting from this the general’s disposable savings of P3,273,767.01, they would have unexplained, hence ill-gotten, wealth of P281,946,223.69.

Clarita, defending her sons who were held in San Francisco in Dec. 2003 for the dollar smuggling, swore to ICE agents their wealth sources: "He (Gen. Garcia) also receives cash for travel and expenses from the businesses that are awarded contracts for military hardware. These businesses are in Europe and Asia. He also receives gifts and gratitude money from several Philippine companies that are awarded military contracts to build roads, bridges and military housing."

In her own handwriting, Clarita explained her role in amassing their wealth: "As a wife, I am also given an envelope as they called ‘shopping money’ that I can use for my own discretion, no receipt of how we use the stipends are even required ... my husband office (sic) are provided with ... lots of gratuities gifts receive (sic) from colleagues. This is again part of the PERKS that my husband received from holding a key position in the Philippine Armed Forces."

Clarita’s avowals are an admission of violating the ill-gotten wealth law. The act forbids "receiving, directly or indirectly, any commission, gift, share, percentage, kickbacks or any other form of pecuniary benefit from any person or entity in connection with any government contract or project or by reason of the office or position of the public official concerned."

Her admissions also fall within the illegal acts defined in the law, to wit, "by taking advantage of official position, authority, relationship, connection or influence to unjustly enrich himself or themselves at the expense and to the damage and prejudice of the Filipino people and the Republic of the Philippines."

Ombudsman Simeon Marcelo has ordered prosecutors to examine Roxas’s complaint, along with documentary evidence two inches thick, to make it airtight for filing before the Sandiganbayan. He said the other plunder complaint, from Operation Clean Hands of private lawyers, was unnecessary since it dwells only on part of the evidence already gathered in the Philippines and US by his field investigators. Nevertheless, the second complaint will be attached to the first.

Marcelo minced no words, though, in responding to press claims of the lawyers that he was not doing anything about the Garcia plunder suit. Describing their evidence as mere photocopies, he said, "they should do their homework; they didn’t even bother to ask us. We want to correct that misleading statement. A complaint for plunder has already been filed with the Ombudsman, and this is in the preliminary investigation stage."

On the day the second case was filed, Ombudsman prosecutors were in fact contesting Garcia’s plea for another 16 days to reply to the first one, arguing that he blew his chance by not doing so in the ten allotted days.

* * *

E-mail: [email protected]