"After assessing the totality of the testimonial and documentary evidence presented by the prosecution, the Court has found the same to be weak in order to support the allegations contained in the equally weak Information for plunder. Suffice it to say that the evidence presented by the prosecution is not enough to convict accused General Garcia of plunder," it said.


The resolution noted Garcia has already pleaded guilty to the lesser offenses of direct bribery and facilitating money laundering after withdrawing his "not guilty" plea on charges of plunder and money laundering.


"Inasmuch as the provisions of the Plea Bargaining Agreement and the concerns of this Court about the protection of the Government have been already fully addressed, there is no reason why this Court should withhold approval of the Plea Bargaining Agreement in these cases," the Sandiganbayan said.


Questions have been raised on why Garcia was allowed to plead to the lesser offenses – in December last year -- even if the agreement had yet to be approved.


In a separate 157-page resolution written by Associate Justice Samuel R. Martires, the court junked for lack of merit a petition of the Office of the Solicitor General seeking permission to intervene in the case and challenge the legality and propriety of the plea bargain. Presiding Justice and Second Division chairman Edilberto Sandoval and Associate Justice Teresita V. Diaz-Baldos concurred.


The justices acknowledged that they felt intense public reaction against the Garcia plea bargain deal but said they could not allow public clamor to color their ruling on the case incidents at bar.


"We must not be swayed by a public opinion which, no matter how valid and sincere the sentiments may be, is expressed in terms of emotions, if not from a limited perception and a shallow appreciation of the facts. Our findings that the accused is innocent may be unpopular, but we would rather tell the truth and be unpopular, than be a superstar (sic) because we satisfied public opinion by creating half-truths and distortions," the court said.


It castigated the OSG for "pre-empting the decision of the court on the plea bargaining agreement"; accusing the court of disregarding legal requirement or guidelines; and engaging in "fault-finding" and trying to show that the court "did not even use its common sense."



In the same resolution, the court disclosed that it was ready to resolve the request for approval of the Garcia plea bargain deal back on December 28 but decided to defer so that the OSG will have an opportunity to present its arguments.


OFFENDED PARTY


The court dismissed OSG arguments that the Armed Forces should have been consulted as an offended party and that the OSG can intervene in the case in behalf of the government.


The court noted that in the cases of Pilapil v. Garchitorena and Garcia v. Sandiganbayan and Ombudsman, the OSG declined to participate both times on the ground that "under prevailing statutes, it is the Office of the Ombudsman which is vested with the authority to investigate and prosecute petitions for forfeiture involving assets unlawfully acquired…"


"With respect to offenses…such as those covered by the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act and Plunder Law…it is the Ombudsman through the Special Prosecutor who is authorized by law to represent the People. (T)he only instance that the OSG can present the Republic of the Philippine - and not the People of the Philippines - before the Sandiganbayan is in the PCGG cases which…are the recovery of ill-gotten wealth cases against former President Marcos, his relatives and cronies," the court said.


As to the question of the AFP as supposed offended party, the Sandiganbayan held that it has "no legal personality separate and distinct from the State."


"It cannot have an interest superior to the government from where its powers and strength are drawn. The interest of the Republic or the People is amply represented and protected by the Special Prosecutor who is the singular prosecutor authorized by law to represent the State," it said.


REASONABLE DOUBT


On the OSG contention that the court had previously upheld the strength of prosecution evidence against Garcia in denying him bail, the court clarified that it pronounced the prosecution evidence strong enough to convince it to deny bail but said strength "did not graduate to proof beyond reasonable doubt."


"Thus by the prosecution’s failure to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, the case was bound to be either dismissed by the Court on its own initiative…or dismissed through a demurrer to evidence filed by the accused or, in its absence, result in the acquittal of the accused," it said.


The graft court likewise upheld the Ombudsman’s stand that "the deal was the most advantageous to the people" as against the option of acquitting the accused without the government recovering anything.


It lamented that the OSG and other entities contributed to "misinformation that was disseminated about the doctrines of ‘proof beyond reasonable doubt and ‘strong evidence or evident proof’.’


"While the Court is used to be at the center of conflicting interests, and to be the object of criticism from losing parties, we have never seen such distortions and prevarications of the facts from people who are expected to be the sentinels of the rule of law," the Sandiganbayan said.


INHIBITION DENIED


Sandoval, in his separate resolution, also denied the OSG’s motion seeking his inhibition that would have meant the re-raffle of the Garcia plunder case to another division in accordance with Sandiganbayan’s internal rules.


Sandoval noted that the OSG motion was filed even if its motion to intervene has not yet been approved which meant it had no personality to appear in court at the time.


In addition, he noted that he would be reduced to doing nothing if he inhibits himself from any case handled by the Office of the Special Prosecutor simply on the ground that his son, assistant special prosecutor Reynaldo C. Sandoval, is part of said office.

UPROAR! Graft court upholds Garcia plea bargain, calls prosecution evidence 'deficient'