SC Justice Martires denies composing deal grant for ex-AFP comptroller Garcia

SC Justice Martires denies composing deal grant for ex-AFP comptroller GarciaSC Justice Martires denies composing deal grant for ex-AFP comptroller Garcia

Supreme Court Associate Justice Samuel Martires has clarified that he did not pen the Sandiganbayan decision

that granted the plea bargain deal between the Office of the Ombudsman and former AFP comptroller Major

General Carlos Garcia, and he was but among the magistrates that handed down the ruling.

In a text message to ABS-CBN News on Wednesday Martires said, “I am not the ponente (author) in the plea

bargain decision of the Sandiganbayan 2nd Division. It is Justice Teresita Baldos who wrote the ponencia.”

Martires’ clarification is in light of recent attacks on him over the issue following his application for the post of

Ombudsman. Incumbent Ombudsman Conchita Carpio-Morales, a former magistrate of the high court, is set to retire on July 26.

Another Ombudsman competitor, previous Sandiganbayan Presiding Justice and now Ombudsman Special Prosecutor

Edilberto Sandoval, led the Second Division at the time the request deal assertion was affirmed however the issue has not

been raised against him before the Judicial and Bar Council (JBC), the body naturally commanded to screen candidates to the post.

Over tGarcia supplication deal

Interestingly, a formal restriction was held up against Martires before the JBC by a gathering of “Catholic ministers, Evangelical

ministers, and religious educators” over the Garcia supplication deal bargain.

Additionally, on Wednesday, the camp of removed Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno sent to columnists an email

that contained an announcement “from the Group of Evangelical and Catholic religious instructors on the Supreme

Court’s proposal of Associate Justice Samuel Martires for Ombudsman.” The gathering communicated “shock” at the

high court’s consistent underwriting of Martires for the Ombudsman post amid its en banc session on Tuesday, referring

to the Garcia request deal bargain as one of the issues they have against Martires.

Garcia confronted loot raps under the watchful eye of the counter join court after a way of life check uncovered a large

number of pesos and properties in his name, including a unit at the Trump Plaza Condominium in New York. The loot

case secured some P300-million pesos in real money and properties. Garcia was additionally slapped with an illegal tax

avoidance case and his and whatever remains of his family’s benefits requested solidified.

The request deal bargain lessened Garcia’s cases to coordinate gift and encouraging illegal tax avoidance; he conceded

blame to the lesser offenses and surrendered to the state P150 million in real money, land properties, and engine vehicles.

CA UPHELD GARCIA PLEA BARGAIN IN 2016

On July 22, 2016, the Court of Appeals certified the Sandiganbayan’s concede of the request deal understanding, as it

decided that the arrangement was legal.

The case originated from a request of documented by Ombudsman Special Prosecutor Wendell Barreras-Sulit who was

sacked in 2013 by the Aquino organization for going into the supplication deal understanding.

In its governing, the CA requested Sulit’s restoration.

“The Plebara (request deal assention) does not disregard existing guidelines and statute. Request haggling in criminal

cases is a procedure whereby the denounced and the arraignment work out a commonly attractive aura of the case subject

to court endorsement… In our purview, Section 2, Rule 116 of the modified Rules of Court enables the denounced to

supplication deal gives the essentials express in that are confirm to,” the choice read.

The redrafting court additionally concurred with the Ombudsman’s position that the counter join office may go into a request deal bargain as accommodated under Section 11 of the Ombudsman Act of 1989.

Besides considering that the Sandiganbayan endorsed the Plebara the same exhibits the said court’s conviction that the proof of the general population against [Garcia] isn’t adequately solid to convict… We trust that the Plebara was the result of a judicious, sensible and commonsense assessment of the bodies of evidence against Maj. Gen. Carlos Garcia, an answer that would best serve the enthusiasm of the country and its kin,” the CA said.

SC TROs AGREEMENT

The Sandiganbayan was, be that as it may, limited by the SC in July 2013 from actualizing the declaration of judgment in the Garcia loot case in light of the supplication deal understanding struck amongst him and the Ombudsman.

The high court’s Third Division issued a transitory limiting request for the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) which hoisted its case before the SC after the Sandiganbayan denied its supplication to take an interest in the Garcia loot case.

Furthermore, OSG asked the Sandiganbayan to invalidate the request deal bargain yet the counter join court stood pat on its decision as it called attention to that the workplace had “no legitimate identity” or expert to intercede in the Garcia case.

Sandiganbayan additionally kept up that its request deal give was as per law and law and to the greatest advantage of the administration.

Meanwhile Third Division at that point made out of Associate Justices Presbitero Velasco, Jr., Diosdado Peralta, Roberto Abad, Jose Mendoza, and Marvic Leonen.

Abad and Mendoza resign while Velasco to resign on August 8.

The OSG case is as yet pending before the SC.

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.