CA junks plea of ex-prosecutor on Garcia case

MANILA, Philippines - The Court of Appeals (CA) has junked a petition of former special prosecutor Wendell Barreras-Sulit questioning the earlier administrative investigation against her in connection with the controversial plea bargaining agreement with former military comptroller Carlos Garcia in a P300-million plunder case.

In a 25-page decision, the Eighth Division of the appellate court dismissed the claim of Sulit that her constitutional right to due process was violated in the investigation conducted by a committee formed by the Office of the President (OP) without a formal hearing.

Sulit questioned the order issued by the OP’s investigating committee on July 26, 2012 requiring the parties in the administrative case to submit their respective memoranda together with the judicial affidavits of their witnesses.

Sulit argued that she should have been allowed to present oral and documentary evidence and to cross-examine the witnesses against her.

The CA, however, held there was no violation of Sulit’s right to due process since she was afforded the formal investigation.

“She, however, equates formal investigation with formal hearing, which should not be the case, for there can be a formal investigation without having a formal hearing,” explained the ruling penned by Associate Justice Agnes-Reyes Carpio.

“In any event, whether a formal investigation is equated with formal hearing, the denial of the request is not meant to be a denial of due process,” the CA stressed.

The CA pointed out Sulit’s demand to confront and cross-examine the witnesses against her was unnecessary, especially since the evidence of the prosecution’s team consists of documents.

“To be sure, there is nothing wrong with the judicial affidavits taking the place of direct testimony of the witnesses, subject to cross-examination if the adverse party so desires,” the court explained.

But while the CA junked Sulit’s plea, it also reminded the OP’s probe team “to observe procedural and substantive due process, regardless of their personal views and convictions.”

While the draft of its decision is being prepared, the CA noted Sulit submitted a manifestation informing the court that the investigating committee has recommended her dismissal from the service in a decision issued on July 19, 2013.

“There maybe a public uproar calling for her removal from office. But not because she is condemned she gets less protection,” the CA stressed.

“While the CA acknowledged it cannot ask the Executive branch to observe judiciary courtesy by simply first awaiting the decision of the Court of Appeals, particularly if one of the issues raised in the subject case pertain to the constitutional right to due process of the petitioner/s before submitting the case for decision to the president, it will not make those involved in administrative proceedings lesser persons if they, by their own volition, observe the reason for the principle of judiciary courtesy – respect for law and legal process,” it added.

The CA also clarified its decision does not dwell on whether Sulit’s dismissal by the OP is null and void but merely on the issue of whether she was deprived of due process in relation to her request for a formal hearing.

Garcia, his wife Clarita and their sons Ian Carl, Juan Paulo, and Timothy Mark were charged with plunder and money laundering in April 2005. The former military comptroller was accused of stealing around P303 million in public funds while in service.

On March 16, 2010, Sulit and her staff, representing the government in the case, asked and got an approval from the Sandiganbayan for Garcia to enter into a plea bargaining agreement with the government.

Under the approved agreement, Garcia was allowed, among others, to plead guilty to two lesser offenses, return to the government around half of the P303 million that he allegedly stole from the government, and ultimately to be set free by posting bail.

The House committee on justice conducted hearings on the issue and recommended before Malacañang to dismiss Sulit and the filing of charges against her deputies and assistant for culpable violations of the Constitution and betrayal of public trust, which are violations under the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act and grounds for removal from office under the Ombudsman Act.