Former military comptroller Carlos Garcia. FILE PHOTO
MANILA, Philippines—The Court of Appeals has dismissed the petition of a former special prosecutor in the Office of the Ombudsman questioning her investigation by the Office of the President in connection with her approval of the controversial plea bargain in the plunder case against Maj. Gen. Carlos Garcia in 2010.
In a 25-page ruling, the court’s Eighth Division dismissed the petition for certiorari, prohibition or mandamus filed by lawyer Wendell Barreras-Sulit who had sought to annul and set aside three orders issued by the OP against her in 2012.
Sulit in October 2008 was designated officer in charge of the Office of the Special Prosecutor and was responsible for filing on March 16, 2010, a joint motion for approval of the plea bargain with Garcia in the Sandiganbayan.
For recommending approval of the plea bargain, Sulit was investigated by the House of Representatives’ justice committee, which on Feb. 22, 2011, recommended to President Aquino that she be dismissed from the government service.
Executive Secretary Paquito Ochoa asked Sulit to show cause why she should not face administrative disciplinary proceedings. Sulit assailed the action and questioned the OP’s jurisdiction over her.
The OP proceeded with the preliminary investigation as Sulit filed suit in the Supreme Court questioning the OP’s jurisdiction and the proceedings against her.
On June 14, 2011, Ochoa formally charged Sulit “for acts and/or omissions constituting graft and corruption and betrayal of the public trust” and ordered her to answer the formal charge.
A formal investigating committee was constituted and on July 26, 2012, it directed the parties to submit their memoranda together with the affidavits of their witnesses in lieu of oral testimony. Sulit questioned this order, saying she wanted a chance to cross-examine the witnesses against her.
But the committee issued an order on Sept. 17, 2012, saying that judicial affidavits may be used because the prosecution would only present documentary and not oral testimony.
Sulit again questioned this order and, without waiting for the committee’s response, went to the appellate court where she accused the OP of committing a grave abuse of discretion when it held the proceedings when she was not yet a presidential appointee at the time she recommended the plea bargain. She also said the OP deprived her of her right to present evidence in a formal hearing, among other things.
In the decision penned by Justice Agnes Reyes-Carpio, the appellate court maintained that Sulit was already the special prosecutor at the time she recommended approval of the plea bargain and, thus, she had “direct and indirect participation” in the plea bargain agreement.
“Even assuming that she was merely an OIC of the Office of the Special Prosecutor, we note that she had the duties and responsibilities equivalent to that of a special prosecutor,” it said.
The plea bargain would have allowed Garcia to escape plunder charges and instead face the lesser offenses of money laundering and direct bribery in exchange for returning P135 million of the more than P300 million he was accused of taking from military coffers.
Related Stories:
PMA alumni expel Carlos Garcia
SC stops Garcia plea bargain deal