Ombudsman Conchita Carpio-Morales is seeking to revive the plunder case of former military comptroller Carlos Garcia that was extinguished by his controversial plea bargain.
Rejecting her predecessor’s position on the case, Morales 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.
Morales said the plea bargain might even pin down Garcia, who, along with his wife and sons, was accused of plundering P303 million and of money laundering. She also said it was premature to conclude that the evidence against him was weak.
She added that the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) must be allowed to intervene in the case.
Under the plea bargain approved by Morales’ predecessor, Merceditas Gutierrez, Garcia pleaded guilty to direct bribery and facilitating money laundering, and turned over P135 million of his and his family’s assets to the government.
Implied admission
The Sandiganbayan approved the deal on May 9, but the OSG contested it by filing a motion for reconsideration. Before the antigraft court could resolve this motion, Morales asked that the proceedings be deferred so she could file a position paper on the case.
In her paper, Morales said the deal partook of the nature of a compromise agreement. She said what came into play were the rules of court stating that in most criminal cases, “an offer of compromise by the accused may be received in evidence as an implied admission of guilt.”
She said Garcia had transferred the P135 million to the state, and that by the terms of the plea bargain, he had admitted to having amassed, accumulated or acquired, by himself or with his family, ill-gotten wealth worth P135 million.
She noted that Garcia had admitted ownership of the properties, and that these fell under the definition of ill-gotten wealth under the plunder law.
“Would General Garcia have surrendered those P135,433,387.84 properties to the republic if they were not ill-gotten? This total amount is clearly more than two times and nearly three times more than the minimal aggregate amount of P50,000,000 mentioned under [the plunder law],” Morales said.
Wife’s letters
The Ombudsman also contested the court’s resolution that detailed what it said were the weaknesses of the case against Garcia.
She said that in concluding that the prosecution had failed to prove Garcia’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt, the court passed upon the probative value of the letters of Garcia’s wife Clarita, in which she said her husband had received “gratitude money” from contractors.
The Sandiganbayan had ruled that since Clarita Garcia was not presented to testify, the letters were hearsay and had no probative force.
But Morales wondered whether prosecutors had pursued this path in earnest.
“[W]as there any earnest effort to pursue the extradition cases in the United States against Mrs. Garcia and her three sons—coaccused in the cases at bar? The Office of the Special Prosecutor and/or perhaps the offices concerned in the extradition cases pending in the United States can offer enlightenment,” she said.
Morales said government officials should, at all times, be judged against the highest standards of behavior.
She cited a US ruling by Justice Louis Brandeis who said that decency, security and liberty demanded that government officials be subjected to the same rules of conduct as ordinary citizens, and that if the government became a lawbreaker, it bred contempt for the law.
“This oracle could very well have been spoken today. Here and now!” she said.
Let OSG intervene
Morales also said it was premature to say the case was weak because when the plea bargain was submitted for approval, the prosecution had not rested its case.
She said the OSG should be allowed to intervene in the case as the law office of the government.
“There can be no matter that ‘affects the welfare of the people as the ends of justice may require’ more than the successful prosecution of a case for plunder…” she said.