Court OKs Garcia plea bargain deal

MANILA, Philippines—Despite public uproar over the deal, the Sandiganbayan Second Division Monday approved the plea bargain between former military comptroller Carlos Garcia and government prosecutors over his P303-million plunder case.

The ruling was a blow to the anticorruption campaign of President Benigno Aquino III, said supporters of the administration who assailed it as “totally erroneous,” “a disappointing development” and “highly questionable.”

The Sandiganbayan said the weak evidence against Garcia would have led to his acquittal.

In a resolution, the anti-graft court said it approved the agreement because Garcia had complied with its conditions—pleading guilty to the lesser offenses of direct bribery and facilitating money laundering, and transferring P135.433 million of his and his family’s assets to the state.

“Inasmuch as the provisions of the plea bargaining agreement and the concerns of this court about the protection of the government have been fully addressed, there is no reason why this court should withhold approval of the plea bargaining agreement in these cases,” the Sandiganbayan said.

Because of the deal submitted to the anti-graft court for approval, Garcia was allowed to walk out of his Camp Crame detention cell on bail of P60,000 on Dec. 18 last year after six years in detention.

OSG intervention denied

The court, in two other separate rulings, also denied the motions filed by the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) seeking to intervene in the case so that it could ask for the recall of the plea bargain, and calling for Presiding Justice Edilberto Sandoval to inhibit from the case.

With the plea bargain approved, the next step is for the Sandiganbayan to sentence Garcia for the charges of direct bribery and facilitating money laundering. This has yet to be scheduled.

The resolution approving the plea bargain was penned by Associate Justice Teresita Diaz-Baldos and concurred by Sandoval and Associate Justice Samuel Martires. Martires penned the decision on the OSG motion to intervene.

The rulings were handed down on the first working day after the effectivity of the resignation of Ombudsman Merceditas Gutierrez, who had come under fire for approving the plea bargain.

Facts over emotions

In its resolution denying the OSG’s intervention, the Sandiganbayan noted that there had been public uproar over the plea bargain. The court said that its ruling was based on facts—which it lamented had been distorted by critics of the deal—and that it would rather tell the truth than pander to public opinion.

“We must not be swayed by a public opinion which, no matter how valid and sincere the sentiments may be, is expressed in terms of emotions, if not, from a limited perception and shallow appreciation of the facts,” it said.

The court said its findings that “the accused is innocent may be unpopular. But, we would rather tell the truth and be unpopular, than be a superstar because we satisfied public opinion by creating half-truths and distortions.”

Fairness, equity

It further said that it must follow the basic standards of fairness and equity in order to serve the ends of justice.

“No matter how noble and justifiable the dissent, it must not prevail over the ultimate responsibility of the court to interpret the law according to the facts presented before it,” it said.

The Sandiganbayan also hit the many criticisms against the plea bargain. It said that the critics muddled the concepts of strong evidence, which was used in denying Garcia’s earlier petition for bail, and proof beyond reasonable doubt, which is needed to convict him.

“From the altered and baseless comments on the true facts and circumstances of the plea bargaining agreement, public opinion snowballed. While the court is used to be[ing] at the center of conflicting interests, and to be the object of criticism from losing parties, we have never seen such distortions and prevarications of the facts from people who are expected to be sentinels of the rule of law,” it said.

Integrity doubted

The court’s own integrity and that of the justices also became subject to doubt, it noted. It said that it understood the people’s desire to eradicate graft and corruption, since the court abhorred such things, too.

But it said its anger and personal views must be set aside and yield to its responsibility to be impartial in rendering justice.

The court said it was not saying that Garcia and his wife and children, who are his co-accused in the case, were “immaculate white” or that their wealth all came from legitimate sources.

Heidi Mendoza’s testimony

But it said the case that was built against them—consisting mostly of Clarita Garcia’s statement about the source of her husband’s wealth and the testimony of state auditor Heidi Mendoza—would not stand in court.

Clarita issued written statements to US authorities that her husband had received money from military suppliers, while Mendoza testified on irregularities in military transactions involving Garcia.

The Sandiganbayan said that since the prosecution’s evidence could not have secured Garcia’s plunder conviction, the case was bound to have been dismissed by the court, or dismissed through a demurrer to evidence, with both resulting in Garcia’s acquittal.

Options

It said that when the plea bargain was submitted for approval, the court could either disapprove the deal and acquit Garcia without the government recovering anything; or approve the deal, convict Garcia for bribery and allow the government to recover the assets mentioned in the Ombudsman’s resolution ordering him charged criminally.

“Without reluctance and reservation, the court viewed the latter option as the deal most advantageous to the people,” it said.

It added that this was the reason that in its May 4, 2010, resolution, it challenged Garcia to transfer the assets to the government first before the deal could be approved. This resolution should not be construed as an approval of the plea bargain, it said.

In discussing the weakness of the case against Garcia, the Sandiganbayan said none of the evidence had proven beyond reasonable doubt that the properties that Garcia and his family had amassed came from commissions, gifts, shares, percentages or kickbacks, as what prosecutors alleged in the charge sheet.

Defects in charge sheet

It said that from the inception of the case, the Office of the Ombudsman had no evidence for plunder, and noted defects in the information or charge sheet. The graft investigators failed to mention the name of the contractor, supplier or individual from whom Garcia received gifts or kickbacks, it said. There was also no mention of how much he received from the contractors.

The charge sheet was also unclear about how the Garcias committed the alleged plunder. There was also no mention of how much the accused received from each criminal act they committed and what was just alleged was the value of the Garcias’ properties. Garcia’s position in the Armed Forces of the Philippines was also not mentioned.

No missing P50 million

The court said the testimony of Mendoza, who has since spoken out against the plea bargain, showed that there was no missing P50 million in military funds from a P200-million check, since the entire amount was deposited only in accounts belonging to the Armed Forces. This was contrary to Mendoza’s position that the P50 million had been unaccounted for.

The court contested Mendoza’s findings on the alleged acts of conversion of military funds involving Garcia. It said that there was no proof that Garcia had benefited from the transactions and that his only involvement was to sign the checks for caterers and vehicle rentals.

“All told, the suspicions, innuendoes and unsupported allegations of fraud in the audit report would have been avoided if only Ms Mendoza had religiously followed her mandate to conduct a financial audit, and strictly adhered to guidelines and standards in government auditing,” it said.

Financial audit, not fraud audit

The court said Mendoza’s team was tasked with conducting a financial audit, but instead conducted a fraud audit. It said she failed to observe the Commission on Audit guidelines on when and how a fraud audit should be conducted, and did not conduct a requisite “exit conference” with Garcia.

This omission, it added, was a “gross error that tainted the objectives of the audit.”

As for Clarita’s statements before US authorities, the court said that these had no value as evidence against her husband. Since Clarita has not testified in court, the letters are just hearsay, it said.

Offended party

The court also ruled that the OSG could not intervene in the case because the AFP was not an offended party in the case and the OSG had no statutory authority to represent the government in the case.

It said that except in cases on the recovery of ill-gotten wealth, the authority to investigate and prosecute cases before the Sandiganbayan lies with the Ombudsman through the Office of the Special Prosecutor.

The court also said the plea bargain could be entered into even after the prosecution finished presenting its evidence, as in this case. This was affirmed in an earlier Supreme Court ruling, it said.

The assets transferred by Garcia to the state include properties in the province of Iloilo, Guimaras, Batangas and Baguio City. As for his properties in the United States, the court noted that the US government would forfeit the Trump Park Condominium and two US bank accounts, and the Philippines would be entitled to an asset-sharing program under the terms of the Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty.