Gen. Garcia's Plea Bargaining Agreement: My personal note...

Our Professor in Problem Areas in Legal Ethics required us to write about our opinion regarding the controversial Plea Bargaining Agreement entered into by Gen. Garcia and the government through the Ombudsman and the Office of Special Prosecutor. At first, i dont want to write because i might be subjective. But, for compliance purposes i have to. :) 

Well, corruption in our country is normal nowadays... Despite all campaigns against it, no one can fully eradicate it... As what i teach to my students, if we dont want corruption, practice it in our own lives. Many people sees corruption conclusively on the part of the government. That is wrong. In our own small acts, we may corruption. Like in students, asking money for a project that never exists... employees using the resources of their office... and many more... 

Therefore, erasing corruption in our nation is a collective act, it's not all about people in the government but all of us, citizens of our country... Yes, it may sound flowery, but at least by doing so we may move others to act against it... So, hereunder is my opinion submitted to Atty. Edith Santos:

Corruption is the main problem in our nation. Though it’s not new to us, efforts are still in process to lessen if not completely eradicate that epidemic culture. The shout out of the new administration is to kill corruption to renew public trust for us to achieve wide development. 

Recently, our government was caught in a situation where its defenders also involved not only in a cheap corruption but in tons of corruption which entails billions of pesos. Such was dubbed as “Military Corruption” that led to a surprising suicide committed by one of its prominent leaders.

That evolves from a legal issue about plea bargaining agreement entered into by the Ombudsman and Gen. Garcia. Accordingly, plea bargaining is an agreement in a criminal case where the prosecutor offers the defendant to the opportunity to plead guilty, usually to a lesser offense with a recommendation of a lighter than the maximum sentence. 

Gen. Garcia, who was in charge of disbursement of military funds when he held the post of AFP comptroller, is by far the highest-ranked military official undergoing trial by the anti-graft court for the crime of plunder, or graft and corruption on a massive scale. 

He walked free after entering a plea bargaining agreement with the Office of the Ombudsman by pleading not guilty to charges of plunder and violation of Sec. 4-A of the Anti-Money Laundering Act (AMLA) and guilty to the charges of direct bribery and Section 4-B of the AMLA before the Sandiganbayan's Second Division. 

Legally speaking, plea bargaining is a legal remedy available to accused. For practical purposes, an accused would have it executed to escape from a bigger punishment though entails guilt on his part. However, existing rules must be applied thereof. In the case of Gen. Garcia, plea bargaining was entered into without the consent of the aggrieved party. Since the case involves public money, the aggrieved party, which in this case the state must be rightfully represented by the President. Hence, consent of the President or even its alter ego in the military should at least be informed for it to give his comment, suggestions, and recommendation or outright approval or disapproval. 

I believe that in this special case of corruption, the plea bargaining entered into by the parties herein is illegal in view of the foregoing statement. Speaking outside the legal arena, the plea bargaining in this special case must be disregarded. Again, the crime committed involves public money which essentially involves also public trust imposed upon Gen. Garcia. Though he plead guilty of the lesser crime, we know, and it is evident based on the on-going investigation that Gen. Garcia and the rest of the gang committed such betrayal of trust and destroyed the image of our supposed to be defenders. The congress should therefore revisit the rules related to plea bargaining and set exceptions taking into consideration the public interest superior to the rights given to the accused. Thus, public welfare should always be protected though it may prejudice one’s rights who confirmed the charged against him. 

(Feb.24, 2011, 3:30 am @ bhok's residence)