January 23, 2011, 5:59pm

http://www.mb.com.ph/articles/300214/pcgg-garcia-deal-defective

MANILA, Philippines – The Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG) Sunday echoed criticism that the plea bargaining agreement between accused plunderer retired Maj. Gen. Carlos F. Garcia and Ombudsman prosecutors suffers from procedural defects.

PCGG Chairman Juan Andres Bautista, dean of the Far Eastern University-College of Law, said the plea deal failed to meet two important pre-requisites set under Rule 116, Section 2 of the Rules of Court, governing plea bargain agreements:

“Consent of the offended party” and the lesser offense pleaded guilty to by the accused must be “necessarily included in the offense charged.”

He noted that while Garcia was originally charged with plunder – a capital crime punished under Republic Act (RA) 7080 – he subsequently pleaded guilty to direct bribery which is penalized under Article 210 of the Revised Penal Code and facilitating money laundering covered under RA 9160.

“Query as to whether the crime of direct bribery and money laundering are ‘necessarily included’ in the offense of plunder? Note that both crimes are punished by different laws,” Bautista pointed out in a newspaper column.

The PCGG chief also noted the requirement of obtaining the consent of the offended party before the trial court allows the downgrading of the original offense charged.

“In this instance, who is the offended party? Is it the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) since the money seems to have been taken from its coffers or the Republic since public money is involved. In any event, if we follow the news reports, it would seem that neither of their consents was secured,” Bautista said.

Ombudsman prosecutors recently clarified that they decided to enter into a plea bargain deal with Garcia to try to “salvage a weak case.”

They said the evidence they had compiled and presented before the Sandiganbayan against the former military comptroller may not secure for the Ombudsman his conviction for plunder.

A plea bargain deal, which resulted in the return of P135 million in supposed ill-gotten wealth of Garcia and his family, is not bad after all, they said.

Meanwhile, Court Administrator and Supreme Court Spokesman Jose Midas Marquez appealed to critics to just wait for the Sandiganbayan’s ruling on the plea bargaining agreement.

“The court speaks through its decision. I understand the Sandiganbayan has not come out with a decision yet. So let us all wait for the decision of the Sandiganbayan,” Marquez said.

Marquez advised detractors of the Garcia-prosecutors deal to avoid preempting the Sandiganbayan. He also said that the negative reactions on the deal were “all premature” considering that the anti-graft court has yet to come up with a ruling.

“Let’s wait for the decision, let’s go through the decision and read it carefully. After which we can make our own respective comments and issue our views,” Marquez said.

“I have full faith in our Sandiganbayan. Let’s give Sandiganbayan a chance to promulgate its decision on the merits,” he added.

The court official issued the statement following intense criticisms of the way the Sandiganbayan and the prosecutors are handling Garcia’s case, the latest of which came from Justice Secretary Leila de Lima.

De Lima earlier said the anti-graft court has a lot of explaining to do in connection with the plea deal, especially after it allowed Garcia to post a P60,000 bail after he pleaded guilty to two lesser offenses.

Garcia was originally charged and tried for plunder, a non-bailable offense punishable by life imprisonment, based on allegations that he amassed ill-gotten wealth amounting to P303 million during his stint as comptroller of the AFP.

De Lima was wondering that if there has been no approval yet of the Garcia-Ombudsman deal by the Sandiganbayan, how come the retired general was allowed to post bail and has in fact turned over some of his assets to government.

Marquez said they expect the Sandiganbayan magistrates to fully elucidate everything in their upcoming decision even as he cast doubt on the authority of the justice secretary to require the anti-graft court to explain. “I don’t know if she has an authority but I would like to think it’s only the Supreme Court which can ask Sandiganbayan justices to explain,” Marquez said.