MANILA, Philippines—Government lawyers asked the Sandiganbayan to reverse its May decision approving the plea bargaining agreement between former Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) comptroller Carlos Garcia and the Office of the Ombudsman.
In its 124-page motion, the Office of the Solicitor-General, led by Solicitor-General Jose Anselmo Cadiz, also asked the Sandiganbayan Second Division to nullify the arraignment of Garcia for the lesser offense of direct bribery, and revoke the bail he has posted for his temporary liberty last December, 2010.
“The plea bargaining agreement suffers from fatally grave infirmities, primarily because it does not bear the consent of the Republic of the Philippines, or the AFP as the most closely-offended agency of the Republic,” the Solicitor-General said in the motion filed on Tuesday before the Sandiganbayan Second Division.
The government lawyers added that contrary to the claim of the Sandiganbayan in its May 2011 decision, the plea bargain “is not the deal most favorable to the People.”
“By approving the plea bargaining agreement, the Honorable Court virtually allowed accused Garcia and his family to walk free.”
Garcia has been accused of plunder for amassing over P300-million government funds. Last May 9, the Sandiganbayan approved the plea bargain agreement saying Garcia was able to comply with the anti-graft court’s condition for the immediate transfer, conveyance of his real and personal properties including bank accounts to the government.
Garcia has turned over to the government P135-million worth of properties.
The anti-graft court is also waiting for the US government to turn over to the government bank accounts of Garcia and his family, as well as the Trump Park Avenue Condominium in New York worth P43.155-million.
As part of the agreement, Garcia was allowed to enter a plea to a lesser offense which is direct bribery instead of plunder.
Government lawyers said direct bribery carry the penalty of four years two months and one day to eight years. Since Garcia remained incarcerated from 2004 to Dec. 15, 2010, the period of detention shall be included in the computation of period of his prison term which is far lighter than the penalty provided for plunder, which is reclusion perpetua, or 20 to 40 years imprisonment.
“Moreover, Garcia’s wife and children will no longer be prosecuted in the country, and elsewhere pursuant to the plea bargaining agreement,” Cadiz said.
They added that contrary to the Ombudsman’s claim, there is enough evidence to convict Garcia of plunder, even in the absence of the names of contractors and suppliers who allegedly gave him gifts and kickbacks.
Clarita Garcia, in her two written statements, said that she and her husband received travel allowances, shopping money and other “gratuities, gifts and perks” while he was holding key position in the military.
The solicitor-general said the spousal privilege of testifying against each other can no longer be used here because the Sandiganbayan itself, through a separate opinion of Associate Justice Samuel Martires, said that “it is true that the extra-judicial admission of Clarita Garcia is only admissible with respect to her. However, since no objection was raised by the accused as to the falsity of the statements made therein, or that the statement was made through threats, force or violence, the extra-judicial admission is admissible in evidence, NOT as an admission to the commission of the crime of plunder but, as to the source of income of the Spouses Gen. Carlos Garcia and Clarita Padilla.”
Earlier, the government asked the Sandiganbayan not to proceed with the promulgation of its decision on Garcia’s direct bribery case pending the filing of their appeal.
The joint motion for approval of the plea bargaining agreement was submitted by the Office of the Ombudsman on March 16, 2010 in connection with the plunder case and violation of the Anti-Money Laundering law. It was approved last May 9.
Second Division Chair Associate Justice Edilberto Sandoval also dismissed the Solicitor-General’s motion seeking his inhibition from the case.