Garcia’s fate hangs on wife’s kickback admission

Former Maj. Gen. Carlos Garcia’s fate hangs on the previous admission of his wife regarding their alleged P303.2-million fortune, but defense lawyers are trying to have this statement dismissed as "inadmissible evidence."

Defense lawyers are attempting to strike Clarita Garcia’s sworn statement, which she submitted in April 2004 before the US customs, from the trial against the two-star military official.

Mrs. Garcia signed the statement after their sons Ian Carl and Juan Paolo were arrested by US customs officials for trying to bring in $100,000 in cash.

"Garcia has even refused to acknowledge that Clarita is his wife," Chief Special Prosecutor Dennis Villa Ignacio told the Sandiganbayan justices during the hearing of the plunder case against the former general and his family.

Villa Ignacio was referring to the motion for judicial determination of probable cause filed by lawyers Jose Bautista and Constantino de Jesus in an attempt to defer the issuance of a warrant of arrest against the Garcias.

The lawyers tried to distance their client from the relationship by referring to "the alleged letter of the alleged wife," prompting Villa Ignacio and Ombudsman Simeon Marcelo to suspect that Garcia — currently in a military stockade facing court-martial proceedings — is about to discard Clarita’s admission.

De Jesus argued that even if the statement was indeed executed by Clarita, it should not be considered as evidence since she was not assisted by counsel when she signed the document.

"It was just a friendly discussion. These statement are legally infirm and invalid. It (her admission) violates the Miranda Doctrine (where the presence of a lawyer is required). It’s inadmissible as evidence," De Jesus told the anti-graft court referring to the April 2004 sworn statement by Mrs. Garcia.

Justice Edilberto Sandoval, the chairman of the anti-graft court’s Second Division trying the plunder case, reminded the prosecutors they could not invoke the "marital privilege communication" under Philippine law.

Sandoval explained that ordinarily, the wife cannot be made to testify against her husband, much less can the privileged communication between them be used as evidence.

But Marcelo insisted that Clarita’s admission can be used as the basis for her husband’s indictment since it was an "admission against interest." He said the document was submitted before US authorities which is not under the jurisdiction of the Philippine legal system.

Clarita submitted a statement to US immigration agent Matthew Van Dyke defending the $100,000 in cash brought in by her sons.

She justified the illegal amount, stating her husband was the comptroller of the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) who regularly receives "gratitude money."

"The expense money, gratitude money and shopping money is not declared as income," Clarita’s statement supposedly read.

"As the (AFP) comptroller, my husband handles all budgets for the Armed Forces. He also receives cash for travel expenses from the businesses that are awarded contracts," she said.

Mrs. Garcia also stated that their "businesses are in Europe and Asia."

She said her husband "also receives gifts and gratitude money from several Philippine companies that awarded military contracts to build roads, bridges and military housing."

"My husband is the final signatory for funding the contracts," Mrs. Garcia declared. "As a wife, I am also given an envelope they called shopping money that I can use. No receipt of how we use the stipends are even required."

Mrs. Garcia also narrated that their family’s transportation expenses when going abroad are provided by the winning contractors. She claimed this had been the practice since 1993.

"This is again part of the perks that my husband received for holding a key position in the AFP," she said.