MikeLigalig.com

By Philippine News Agency

The anti-graft court Sandiganbayan justices who approved the plea bargaining agreement between former Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) comptroller retired Maj. Gen. Carlos F. Garcia and the Office of the Ombudsman (Ombudsman), through the Office of the Special Prosecutor (OSP), were criminally charged before the Department of Justice (DOJ) on Wednesday.

Under the agreement, Garcia pleaded guilty to a lesser offense of from P303-million plunder case to direct bribery and money laundering charges.

He was allowed to post a P60,000 bail bond on Dec. 16, 2010 and was released from detention on Dec. 17, 2010.

Likewise, Garcia was also ordered to return to the government P135-million worth of properties.

In a six-page joint complaint-affidavit, former Akbayan party-list Rep. Risa Hontiveros, anti-corruption advocates Leah Navarro and retired Brig. Gen. Danilo Lim filed a complaint for violation of Article 206 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC) for rendering an unjust interlocutory order against Sandiganbayan Second Division Chairman and Sandiganbayan Presiding Justice Edilberto Sandoval, and Associate Justices Teresita Diaz-Baldos and Samuel Martires.

The complainants asserted that the justices “knowingly and willfully” issued an unjust interlocutory order, saying that, the decision was “unfounded and violative of Article 206 of the RPC.”

Article 206 provides that “any judge who shall knowingly render an unjust interlocutory order or decree shall suffer the penalty of arresto mayor in its minimum period and suspension; but if he shall have acted by reason of inexcusable negligence or ignorance and the interlocutory order or decree be manifestly unjust, the penalty shall be suspension.”

They said that the approval of the plea bargaining agreement is highly irregular considering “the undue haste as it was approved on the day the resignation of former Ombudsman Merceditas Gutierrez took effect. The division beat to the punch whatever action or decision on the case the incoming Ombudsman might take.”

They added that the Rules of Court also provides that plea bargaining should be done before trial as stated under Section 1 Rule 118.

Likewise, they also pointed out that the aggrieved party, on this case the AFP, should have given its consent before an agreement is entered.

However, they said that the Ombudsman and Garcia disregarded the consent of the AFP.

“According to the Supreme Court, it is the duty of the court to inquire into the circumstances upon which the plea bargaining agreement is premised. They (justices) would have noticed the failure of the prosecution to secure the consent of the offended party, which immediately would be the AFP,” the complainants said.

They added that the Sandiganbayan’s decision “is a complete turnaround from the declaration of the division in denying the motion for bail on Jan. 7, 2010 when they declared that there is evidence showing that the guilt of the accused is strong.”

“The foregoing circumstances are clear as daylight as to cause the justices to disapprove or reject said plea bargaining agreement,” they said. (PNA)

Linkback: https://tubagbohol.mikeligalig.com/index.php?topic=40847.0