IMPOSITION of fines against a retired military general totaling P406.3 million for plunder and P1.5 million for direct bribery has attained finality and may no longer be modified.
This was the pronouncement made by the Sandiganbayan Second Division in its resolution dated September 19, denying the motion for partial reconsideration of Maj. Gen. (ret.) Carlos F. Garcia, former military comptroller, which asked the court to set aside all fines.
Associate Justice and Division chairperson Geraldine Faith A. Econg penned the eight-page ruling with Associate Justices Edgardo M. Caldona and Arthur O. Malabaguio concurring.
Garcia, in his motion, argued that the P135.43 million he surrendered to government as part of his 2011 plea-bargaining agreement (PBA) with the Office of the Ombudsman has already covered both restitution and penalty.
He cited paragraph 6 of the said agreement which states, “Accused by way of restitution/penalty, hereby transfers, conveys, cedes, surrenders, and relinquish in favor of Republic of the Philippines his ownership, and whatever rights or interests, over the following real and personal properties…”
In imposing fines equivalent to three times the amount he surrendered in the plea bargain deal, Garcia said the Sandiganbayan imposed a double penalty that violated the said agreement.
In the alternative, he pleaded with the court to reduce the amount in the fines imposed saying there were two mitigating circumstances that should be counter in his favor: his voluntary surrender and his plea of guilt.
The anti-graft court, however, pointed out that the claim of voluntary surrender was not substantiated while the plea of guilt was made only after the prosecution has finished presenting its evidence.
While pointing that Garcia’s motion should be denied outright for submitting rehashed arguments, the court opted to address his arguments in detail “to finally put to bed any contentions regarding the nature of the properties surrendered.”
“The PBA contains an admission, in plain language, that the properties were alleged to be proceeds of crimes in the information in these cases. This admission, signed by accused Garcia himself, trumps his claim that the properties were surrendered by way of penalty,” the Sandiganbayan.
Having been acquired through crime, the court said, the P135.43 million is a proper subject of restitution and “may not be considered payment for the fine imposed.”
The court likewise overruled Garcia’s contention that there was insufficiency of evidence in both the plunder and direct bribery charges as well as his challenge to the immutability of the ruling against him.
It said the insufficiency of evidence referred to by the Sandiganbayan — and sustained by the Supreme Court — only applied to the plunder charge but not to the direct bribery case.
“It was accused Garcia himself …who voluntarily and freely came before this Court to enter an plea of guilty to the crime of direct bribery. Therefore, in the case for direct bribery, there was no longer any need for the prosecution to present evidence that the amount of P135,433,387.84 was ill-gotten,” the Sandiganbayan pointed out.
Garcia had earlier protested that the P407.8 million total fines he was ordered to pay is beyond his capacity, saying he has exhausted all his resources to satisfy P135.43 million in his plea deal with the prosecution.
He added that because of the criminal charges, all his pay, allowances and retirement benefits were forfeited by the AFP and he has “lost all means to survive and earn money.”
Aside from a few personal stuff that are exempt from confiscation under the law, he said he is only relying on the help of friends and relatives for his daily needs, clothing, and other provisions.
The court, however, noted that the legal basis for the fine imposed is found under Article 210 of the Revised Penal Code which states that direct bribery is punishable by imprisonment and “a fine of not less than three times the value of the gift.”
