Ex-AFP comptroller in plunder case wants out of penitentiary
Retired major General Carlos P. Garcia. INQUIRER FILE PHOTO…
Former Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) comptroller Carlos Garcia has petitioned the Supreme Court to order his immediate transfer from the state penitentiary in Muntinlupa City to a military detention facility.
In a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, Garcia also questioned the authority of President Aquino to affirm the two-year jail term meted out to him by a military court five years ago.
He claimed his continued incarceration at the New Bilibid Prison (NBP) was “illegal” and asked the high tribunal to void the President’s September 9 order which upheld the military court’s verdict that he had violated Articles of War by underdeclaring his assets and holding a US resident visa or green card.
The former Army major general, who was earlier released from detention after a controversial plea bargain with government prosecutors regarding a P303-million plunder case, said the President’s order “must be considered a grave abuse of discretion.”
Named respondents in the petition were Executive Secretary Paquito Ochoa Jr., the Office of the President, Defense Secretary Voltaire Gazmin, Armed Forces of the Philippines Chief of Staff General Eduardo Oban Jr. and Bureau of Corrections director Gaudencio Pangilinan Jr.
Meanwhile, the Sandiganbayan Second Division yesterday raised questions about Ombudsman Conchita Carpio-Morales’ position paper urging the withdrawal of the plea bargain agreement with Garcia.
A clarificatory hearing was scheduled on Morales’ position paper Monday, but she was unable to attend because of the Senate’s budget hearing on her office’s budget, according to Solicitor General Jose Anselmo Cadiz.
The hearing was reset for Thursday.
During Monday’s hearing, Justice Teresita Diaz-Baldos said the court did not really know how to treat the position paper of the Ombudsman, where she asked the Sandiganbayan to nullify its resolution approving the plea bargain between Garcia and state prosecutors and to continue his trial for plunder and money laundering.
Later, Baldos and Justice Samuel Martires clarified that the court was not requiring the Ombudsman’s presence and that she could send a representative who could answer the justices’ queries. But they also said that the Ombudsman’s presence would be welcome.
