REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES SANDIGANBAYAN Quezon City SECOND DIVISION PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff, Crim. Case No. 28107 {~ (For: Plunder) Crim. Case No. SBO9CRM0194 (For: Violation of RA 9160) -versus- MAJ. GEN. CARLOS F. GARCIA, ET AL, i Accused. [Xoo n nnn nonce n nn nn nn e nn nne x \ OMNIBUS MOTION-IN-INTERVENTION | (to [1] Nullify the Plea Bargaining Agreement between accused Major General Carlos F. Garcia (Ret.) and the Office of the Special Prosecutor, [2] Set Aside the Honorable Court's Resolution promulgated on May 4, 2010 approving said Plea Bargaining Agreement, [8] Recall the Resolution of the Honorable Court promulgated on December 16, 2010 which granted accused Garcia's Motion for Bail, and [4] Suspend the Proceedings in this 4 case pending resolution of subject Omnibus ; Motion-in-Intervention) The OFFICE OF THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (OSG), entering ; its appearance on behalf of the offended party, the Republic of the ; Philippines (Armed Forces of the Philippines), respectfully moves toPeople vs. Garcia, et al Criminal Case No. 28107 | Criminal Case No. SBO9CRM0194 Omnibus Motion-in-Intervention a | (1) nullify the subject Plea Bargaining Agreement, (2) set aside the | Honorable Court's Resolution promulgated on May 4, 2010 approving said Plea Bargaining Agreement, (3) recall the Honorable Court's Resolution promulgated on December 16, 2010 which granted accused Garcia's urgent motion for bail, and (4) suspend the proceedings in this case pending resolution of subject motion based on the following: GROUNDS I. WITH ALL DUE RESPECT, THE HONORABLE COURT'S RESOLUTION PROMULGATED ON MAY 4, 2010 APPROVING THE PLEA BARGAIN AGREEMENT IS NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW BECAUSE: (i) It relied on Section 5, Rule 116 of the Revised Rules of Court which is totally misplaced; (ii) Said Resolution did not adhere to the strictures laid down by the Supreme Court for the valid approval of a change of plea of guilty to a lesser offense; (iii) The Honorable Court's standing ruling is that the prosecution's evidence on record as to the guilt of the accused is strong; hence, it should not have allowed accused Garcia to plead to the'People vs. Garcia, et al |Criminal Case No. 28107 \Criminal Case No. SB09CRMO194 ‘Omnibus Motion-in-Intervention lesser offenses of indirect bribery and facilitating money laundering; (iv) The Plea Bargaining Agreement appears to be a compromise for the convenience of the accused but | against the interest of the Filipino people and the Republic. Il. THE PLEA BARGAINING AGREEMENT IS NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW BECAUSE IT WAS MADE WITHOUT THE CONSENT OF THE OFFENDED PARTY. Ill. ACCORDINGLY, THE HONORABLE COURT'S. RESOLUTION PROMULGATED ON i DECEMBER 16, 2010 GRANTING BAIL TO | ACCUSED GARCIA SHOULD BE SET ASIDE. PREFATORY STATEMENT The Office of the Special Prosecutor (OSP) and accused Major General Carlos F. Garcia entered into a plea bargaining agreement in this case whereby said accused withdrew his plea of not guilty toTy) tex | People vs. Garcia, et al AL Criminal Case No. 28107 Criminal Case No. SB09CRM0194 Omnibus Motion-in-Intervention DISCUSSION (I, With all due respect, the Honorable Court's Resolution i promulgated on May 4, 2010 approving the Plea Bargaining Agreement should be set aside. i Subject resolution relies jon Section 5, Rule 116 (which is totally misplaced. 1. In resolving the parties' Joint Motion for Approval of Plea Bargaining Agreement, the Honorable Court declared: Bargaining Agreement, the Court is of the considered view that the change of plea of the accused is warranted, as it is countenanced under Section 5, Rule 116 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, and that the Court has complied with the guidelines suggested in the case of People v. Camay, as follows: } 1 | After a careful perusal of the Plea 1. The court must conduct a searching inquiry into the voluntariness and full comprehension by the accused of the consequences of his plea; 2 The court must require the prosecution. to present evidence to prove the guilt of the accused and precise degree of his culpability; and 3. . . The court must require the prosecution to present evidence in his behalf and allow him taIPeople vs. Garcia, et al | Criminal Case No. 28107 {Criminal Case No. SBO9CRM0194 1 Omnibus Motion-in-Intervention 6 do so if he desires. The Plea Bargaining Agreement submitted to the Court undeniably evinces the fact that the change of plea was offered by the accused with voluntariness and complete comprehension of its consequences, as he was capably advised by his | counsel. The prosecution had also terminated the / presentation of its evidence, and notably, the Plea | Bargaining Agreement came in the direct | aftermath of the denial of the Petition for Bail of i the accused. There was also reason for the Court to believe that the accused was apprised of all consequences of his act, and that the same was arrived at after discussion and mature deliberation, as indicated by the signatures on the | Plea Bargaining Agreement. x x x! 2. The reliance by the Honorable Court on (i) Section 5, Rule 116 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, and (ii) its compliance with the guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court in ] | | 1 ‘the case of People v. Camay? to virtually sanction the plea i | 1 bargaining agreement is, however, grossly misplaced. 3. Section 5, Rule 116 of the Revised Rules of Criminal {Procedure deals with the withdrawal of an improvident plea of {guilty. It reads: Emphasis supplied,People vs. Garcia, et al. Criminal Case No. 28107 Criminal Case No, SBO9CRM0194 Omnibus Motion-in-Intervention 7. Rs SEC. 5. Withdrawal of improvident plea of guilty.- At any time before the judgment of conviction becomes final, the court may permit an improvident plea of guilty to be withdrawn and be substituted by a plea of not guilty. | 4. Clearly, this rule applies when an accused has pleaded { guilty to a case and now seeks to withdraw such guilty plea improvidently made. Definitely, this situation does not obtain in this case. 9. On the other hand, the requirements enumerated by the Supreme Court in People v. Camay specifically pertain to the duties of the court in cases where an accused pleads guilty to a capital offense. These are found in Section 3, Rule 112 of the Rules of Court which reads: q SEC. 3. Plea of guilty to capital offense; reception of evidence. When the accused pleads 4 guilty to a capital offense, the court shall conduct a searching inquiry into the voluntariness and full comprehension of the consequences of his plea and shall require the prosecution to prove his guilt and the precise degree of culpability. The accused may present evidence in his behalf. 6. Patently, the case of People v. Camay involved an accused pleading guilty to Robbery with Homicide, then a capitalPeople vs. Garcia, et al |Criminal Case No. 28107 /Criminal Case No. SBO9CRMO194 Omnibus Motion-in-Intervention 8- |offense. } 7. This is not the situation in the case at bar. Accused (Garcia, instead of pleading guilty to plunder, the crime with which | jhe was charged in Criminal Case No. 28107, offered to plead, and | has in fact pleaded, guilty to the lesser offenses of Indirect Bribery | i and Facilitating Money Laundering in Criminal Case No. i | SBO9CRMO194. | | | (ii) The Honorable Court's |Resolution approving the | Plea Bargaining Agreement | has no legal basis. j 8. In their undated Plea Bargaining Agreement, accused Garcia and the Office of the Ombudsman invoked Section 2, Rule 116 of the Revised Rules of Court in their bid to secure the approval i i | of the Honorable Court to allow accused Garcia to plead to a lesser || offense. It reads: SEC 2. Plea of guilty to a lesser offense.- At the arraignment, the accused, with the consent of the offended party and the prosecutor, may be allowed by the trial court to plead guilty to a lesser offense which is necessarily included in the offense charged. After arraignment but before the RO tee oe ee one eee le ee ee ee ee