OMNIBUS MOTION-IN-INTERVENTION (to nullify the subject Plea Bargaining Agreement between accused Major General Carlos F. Garcia (Ret.) and the Office of the Special Prosecutor) based on the following: (i) THE HONORABLE COURT'S RESOLUTION PROMULGATED ON MAY 4, 2010 approving said Plea Bargaining Agreement is not in accordance with law; (ii) It relied on Section 5, Rule 116 of the Revised Rules of Court which is
OMNIBUS MOTION-IN-INTERVENTION (to nullify the subject Plea Bargaining Agreement between accused Major General Carlos F. Garcia (Ret.) and the Office of the Special Prosecutor) based on the following: (i) THE HONORABLE COURT'S RESOLUTION PROMULGATED ON MAY 4, 2010 approving said Plea Bargaining Agreement is not in accordance with law; (ii) It relied on Section 5, Rule 116 of the Revised Rules of Court which is
OMNIBUS MOTION-IN-INTERVENTION (to nullify the subject Plea Bargaining Agreement between accused Major General Carlos F. Garcia (Ret.) and the Office of the Special Prosecutor) based on the following: (i) THE HONORABLE COURT'S RESOLUTION PROMULGATED ON MAY 4, 2010 approving said Plea Bargaining Agreement is not in accordance with law; (ii) It relied on Section 5, Rule 116 of the Revised Rules of Court which is
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 toPeople 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 toTy) 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 taIPeople 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 capitalPeople 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