Are wife's admissions vs Gen. Garcia allowable?

Are the voluble Clarita Depakakibo Garcia’s admissions to US feds of her and her general-husband’s plunder allowable in trial? Yes, and the Sandiganbayan had said so as far back as January 2010.

A special five-member division of the anti-graft court had ruled on the matter in relation to Maj. Gen. Carlos Garcia’s May 2007 plea for bail. At that time four hearings had been held on the P303-million plunder rap against the Garcia spouses and sons Ian Carl, Juan Paolo, and Timothy Mark. Only Garcia was in jail then; the four, US citizens all, were at large in America.

In his bail petition Garcia contended that the Ombudsman’s prosecution evidence was weak, based mostly on his wife’s two sworn statements to US Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents. The Ombudsman opposed the bail, seeking to be allowed to go on presenting its case.

The special division’s split decision came almost three years later. Two justices, Edilberto Sandoval and Alex Quiroz, opined that Clarita’s affidavits were inadmissible in evidence under the Rules of Court.

They cited Rule 130, Admissibility (Testimonial Evidence), Section 24, Disqualification by Reason of Privileged Communication, which states: “The following persons cannot testify as to matters learned in confidence in the following cases: (a) The husband or the wife, during or after the marriage, cannot be examined without the consent of the other as to any communication received in confidence by one from the other during the marriage except in a civil suit by one against the other, or in a criminal case for a crime committed by one against the other or the latter’s direct descendants or ascendants....”

Sandoval and Quiroz said the prosecution evidence might be convincing for Garcia’s civil liability, but not his criminal responsibility. While AFP funds could have been juggled, there was no proof that he illegally took money.

Three majority justices, Teresita Diaz-Baldoz, Samuel Martires and Roland Jurado, deemed strong the mass of evidence presented. They denied Garcia’s motion for bail.

The three ruled that the spousal privilege rule did not apply. At the time Clarita swore by details of their wealth, Garcia was not charged with any offense before US or Philippine courts. For the rule to apply, they explained, it must relate to a proposed testimony in court by one spouse against the other. Moreover, Clarita’s disclosures to US lawmen were not Garcia’s communications to her, but her own recitation of events where she was a participant.

On December 19, 2003, US officers seized from Ian Carl and Juan Paolo $100,000 smuggled cash at the San Francisco international airport. Aiming to retrieve the contraband, Clarita detailed in affidavits how they came to own the huge amount. She said that as Armed Forces of the Philippines comptroller, her husband routinely took “gratitude money” for approving and paying military contracts. Joining Garcia’s many inspections of manufactories abroad, they each accept up to $20,000 “shopping money” from suppliers. They have a profitable plantation, a resort and a day-care in the Philippines for which they evade taxes. They get vehicles, 4,000 gallons monthly gasoline, drivers, bodyguards, and a cook-pianist from the AFP. Clarita’s sons found it a hassle to have to declare the $100,000 they were bringing into America. But not her; she dutifully had disclosed the $100,000 she carried two days earlier on December 17, another $200,000 in January 2003, and other big amounts on other times since 1993. The Philippines got hold of the info. Garcia was court-martialed and indicted at the Sandigan for plunder, with a separate forfeiture case of unexplained wealth.

The Sandigan 2nd division (Sandoval, chairman; Diaz-Baldoz and Martires, associates) was trying the plunder case — until last December 16, 2010. That day Garcia suddenly withdrew his not-guilty plea to the capital crime. Instead he pleaded guilty to the lesser offenses of bribery and money laundering, and promised to surrender P135 million in loot. Justifying the plea bargain, the Ombudsman would later claim that its evidence was weak and the P303 million was a bloated figure.

Fearing harm on his anti-corruption drive, President Noynoy Aquino ordered his legal team review the plea deal. So far the reviewers have turned up and are questioning the following:

• On February 5, 2010, Garcia moved for reconsideration of the special division’s denial of bail. On March 19, 2010, the Ombudsman again opposed it. Curiously, three days before, on March 16, 2010, Garcia and the Ombudsman filed a joint motion for approval of the plea deal.

• In August 2010 the 2nd division ordered the transfer to the government of Garcia’s admitted P135 million in assets. But the guilty pleas were made only on December 16, 2010.

• That same day Garcia filed a motion for bail on the two lighter crimes. By afternoon, in breach of a three-day rule to schedule hearings, the justices heard the motion and granted bail of P60,000. The offended parties — the State, the AFP, and the Anti-Money Laundering Council, were not given due notice.

• Also in breach of rules, the plea bargain came too late, after the prosecution had rested its case. Again the consent of the offended parties was not secured.

• The surrender terms of the P135 million are hazy. It is unclear if the land, buildings and condos in the Philippines and America, vehicles, peso and dollar deposits, and shares of stock already are covered in the forfeiture case.

*      *      *

E-mail: [email protected]