3 Sandigan Justices Sued Over Garcia Plea Bargain

MANILA, Philippines (May 19, 2011) - Sandiganbayan Presiding Justice Edilberto Sandoval and Associate Justices Teresita Diaz-Baldos and Samuel Martires are facing criminal charges for approving the plea bargain agreement between former military comptroller Carlos Garcia and the Office of the Special Prosecutor.

The military is watching. Armed Forces public affairs chief Lt. Col. Arnulfo Burgos said they did not expect the Sandiganbayan to favor the deal with Garcia.

“Since the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) cannot interfere with the decisions made by the Sandiganbayan, we remain watchful over the consequences of their decision and where it would lead us eventually,” Burgos said.

“We are currently in close coordination with the Office of the Solicitor General. Your Armed Forces is closely monitoring updates on the case (against the Sandiganbayan justices),” he added.

Former lawmaker Risa Hontiveros, retired Army Brig. Gen. Danilo Lim and other complainants charged Sandoval, Diaz-Baldos and Martires with malfeasance in office before the Department of Justice (DOJ) yesterday.

They accused the three justices of issuing an unjust interlocutory order in violation of the Revised Penal Code.

The agreement is injurious to the Filipino people, runs contrary to constitutional principles and sends a wrong message, they added.

Hontiveros and Lim questioned why the anti-graft court approved the deal despite findings in congressional inquiry that it was patently irregular.

They also asked why the ruling was handed down with “undue haste” or on the day the resignation of Ombudsman Merceditas Gutierrez took effect.

“The division beat to the punch whatever action or decision on the case the incoming Ombudsman might take,” read the complaint.

Lim and Hontiveros said the deal violated the Rules of Court, which provide that plea bargaining should be done before trial.

“Thus, the division disregarded the Rules of Court in approving the plea bargaining agreement,” read the complaint.

Sandigan questions Mendoza’s audit

Audit Commissioner Heidi Mendoza’s 2005 report as state auditor accusing Carlos Garcia of stealing millions from the government was irrelevant to the plunder case against the former military comptroller, the Sandiganbayan has ruled.

In denying the motion for intervention of the Office of the Solicitor General, the anti-graft court said Mendoza’s testimony on the allegedly missing P50 million in military funds only dealt with questionable inter-branch banking practices.

The Sandiganbayan said Garcia cannot be convicted of the crime of plunder because what is alleged in the information are predicate acts constitutive of bribery, not malversation of public funds.

Mendoza’s testimony “has no relation” to allegations that Garcia received gifts, bribes, commissions or kickbacks from military suppliers and contractors amounting to P303 million, the anti-graft court added.

Mendoza was one of the main prosecution witnesses against Garcia.

The Sandiganbayan questioned why Mendoza did not accept the explanation of the bank’s branch manager that the supposedly missing P200 million remained intact in the bank account of the Armed Forces.

“It is just surprising why Ms. Mendoza refused to believe the explanation of the bank and insisted upon her own findings that are not supported by a single piece of document,” read the Sandiganbayan decision.

“It must be noted that per auditing guidelines, documents are necessary to support the findings of an examining auditor.”

The anti-graft court said Mendoza forgot to observe the Commission on Audit guidelines on when and how a fraud audit should be conducted.

Mendoza’s “no contact policy” with Garcia is a “gross error that tainted the objectives of the audit,” the Sandiganbayan added.

The Sandiganbayan was surprised that Mendoza’s audit report was only signed by her in open court on Oct. 29, 2008 when she claims to have completed it in 2005.

It also noticed how the audit report did not bear the signatures of nine other COA auditors and other members of the audit team from the Office of the Ombudsman.

“What we cannot understand also is her claim that she is the team leader designated by COA because her name is separated from the list of team members,” the anti-graft court said.

“A closer look at COA Circular No. 2004-154 will show that her name is separated from the other team members because in the groupings, she is the only one who comes from the Local Government Sector while the rest are from the National Government Sector,” it added.

The Sandiganbayan said Mendoza’s findings have no connection to the plunder case against Garcia.

“It should be clear by now that the testimony and report of Ms. Mendoza has no relation to the predicate offenses alleged in the information,” read the Sandiganbayan decision.

“At best, it is a narrative of the alleged acts of the accused that may constitute malversation or technical malversation under Articles 217 and 220 of the Revised Penal Code.”

Last May 9, the Sandiganbayan approved the plea bargaining deal between Garcia and the Office of the Special Prosecutor.

Under the agreement, the plunder case against Garcia was downgraded to direct bribery and facilitating money laundering.

Garcia pleaded guilty to these crimes five months ago.

The STAR tried to reach Mendoza for comment, but was told that she is on official travel to Geneva, Switzerland with COA Chairperson Grace Tan and will not be back until next week.

The Sandiganbayan ruling was penned by Associate Justice Samuel Martires.