THE body of evidence against former military comptroller and now retired Maj. Gen. Carlos Garcia seemed to have weakened as the trial against him on plunder and money-laundering charges rolls, a government lawyer said on Monday.
Assistant Special Prosecutor Joseph Capistrano told a Sandiganbayan hearing that as the trial of Garcia’s cases went on, the prosecution was not be able to “substantiate” its claims on the crimes allegedly committed by Garcia.

“We were not able to find any supplier or contractor to corroborate and substantiate our case against Garcia,” Capistrano said during the hearing on a motion to intervene filed by the Office of the Solicitor General’s (OSG).

It was reported that Garcia’s spouse Clarita had told US immigration officials that her husband, as Armed Forces of the Philippines comptroller, received “gratitude money” for approving military contracts.

The Garcias also reportedly received “shopping money” from suppliers of up to $20,000.

Despite this evidently inappropriate practice, the prosecution said that the grounds for Garcia’s conviction were weakening.

“We needed to avail of all possible remedies available to us to protect the interest of the people,” Capistrano said, referring to a plea bargaining agreement that Garcia had entered into with the Office of the Ombudsman.

He added that pursuing the case when evidence is supposedly weak is “a very big risk.”

The government is expected to receive P135.43 million in pieces of real property, cash and vehicles as a result of the plea bargaining agrement.


No deal yet

During Monday’s trial, judges of the Sandiganbayan’s Second Division handling the Garcia case composed of Presiding Justice Edilberto Sandoval and Associate Justices Teresita Diaz-Baldos and Samuel Martires reiterated that there was no approved agreement yet with Garcia.

According to them, the May 4, 2010 resolution, which the OSG said has been the basis of the plea bargaining agreement’s approval, did not categorically state that the plea bargaining deal had been approved.

“The actual cessation or transfer of ownership in favor of the [Republic of the Philippines] of the [pieces of property] itemized above should first be effected, before the plea bargaining agreement may be approved,” the Sandiganbayan resolution stated.

On December 16, the anti-graft court allowed Garcia to enter a guilty plea to lesser offenses of direct bribery and facilitating money-laundering.


Virtual approval

Despite lack of clarity on the approval of the plea bargaining agreement, the OSG said that the turn of events will lead to approval of the deal.

“Approved na ‘yan [That is already approved] because all the steps and conditions required in order for the plea bargaining agreement to be effective were already fulfilled. Garcia’s assets have already been transferred to the Republic [of the Philippines],” Assistant Solicitor General Amparo Cabotaje-Tang said outside the courtroom.

The government lawyers said that even without finality on the part of the anti-graft court, there seems to be a “virtual approval.”

“The Sandiganbayan said in their resolution dated May 4 that they did not approve anything. That is why what we are saying that it’s a virtual approval,” Tang said.

She added that considering that the court did not approve the plea bargain, standing charges against Garcia would still be money-laundering and plunder, an unbailable capital offense.

But Garcia still had been able to walk free.

“Plunder and money-laundering carry higher penalties and are non-bailable. Kung sinasabi nila na di pa na-approve yung plea bargaining agreement, bakit nakalabas si Gen. Garcia? [If they’re saying that the plea bargaining agreement has not been approved, how come Gen Garcia was able to walk free from jail?],” Tang asked.

She said that the Sandiganbayan must follow parameters laid down by the Supreme Court in approving the deal.

Tang explained that according to the High Tribunal, when an accused offers to plead guilty on a lesser offense and the prosecution has presented its evidence, the court must assess the evidence on record.

Then, she said, only after the court shall have found that the evidence of guilt is not enough to secure a conviction may it approve a plea bargaining deal.

But “nowhere in your resolution dated May 4, 2010 or any of your resolutions said that the prosecution’s body of evidence is not enough to sustain a guilty verdict to convict Gen. Garcia of plunder,” Tang said.

“Nasaan ang finding na ‘yan? Ang existing finding nila is the evidence of guilt is strong kasi dineny nila ang petition for bail ni Gen. Garcia [Where is that finding? Their existing finding is that the evidence of guilt is strong because they denied the petition for bail of Gen. Garcia] based on the January 7, 2010 resolution,” she added.

The OSG wanted the Sandiganbayan to “make a pronouncement” that the evidence against Garcia falls short.

“We said, ‘Make a pronouncement based on the evidence on record, that evidence is not sufficient to secure conviction for crimes of plunder and money,’” Tang said.

The Sandiganbayan will allow Garcia to reply within 15 days on the OSG’s motion to intervene.


Palace raises questions

But Malacanang also on Monday that the Sandiganbayan not approving the plea bargaining agreement between Garcia and the Office of the Ombudsman raises more questions.

“If the Sandiganbayan says that it did not approve the plea bargain agreement last May 4, 2010, why was Gen. Garcia allowed to post bail? Why were some of the assets already turned over?” deputy spokesman Abigail Valte also asked.

“The Sandiganbayan’s answer in effect raised more questions,” she added in a text message relayed to Palace reporters.

WITH REPORT FROM CRIS G. ODRONIA