In ordering Garcia’s arrest but not his kin, the Sandiganbayan second division considered piles of evidence presented by the Ombudsman, like:
(1) US Customs reports on their transport and declaration from Nov. 4, 1993 to Jan. 15, 2004 of $785,360 (P42,503,483.20);
(2) Remittances of Garcia to Clarita from Jan. 24 to Feb. 20, 2004 in the US of $886,957.15 (P49,610,463.89);
(3) Land Bank deposits of $674,286.43 (P37,948,840) and P6,641,451.14;
(4) P10,756,000-investments in the Army cooperative in the names of the general, his wife, and sons Ian Carl, Juan Paolo and Timothy Mark;
(5) Dollar and peso deposits in the Garcias’ names in various banks and AFPSLAI, of which $307,236.22 and P55,340,501.55 were withdrawn, while $728,066.32 and P11,430,531.15 were frozen;
(6) P15,049,791.93 worth of real estate in Baguio, Iloilo, Batangas and Quezon City, in the names of the general or his sons; and
(7) Motor vehicles worth millions of pesos in the Garcias’ names.
Plunder, a heinous crime punished with death, is the amassing by a public official of over P50 million in unexplained wealth through a series or combination of illegal acts, like bribery, fund misuse, perjury, falsification of documents, or money laundering. It may be done solely by the official or in conspiracy with relatives or other persons.
In filing the case in April, the Ombudsman asserted that the Garcias conspired to amass and conceal the wealth. The general’s sworn Statements of Assets and Liabilities from 1993 to 2003 did not list excess wealth of about P302 million, mostly in the names of the wife and sons.
The Ombudsman charged that Mrs. Garcia and sons must have known all the while the general’s wrongdoings as the principal. Its strongest evidence was Mrs. Garcia’s own handwritten and typewritten affidavits before US Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents about amassing the wealth from kickbacks. She had filed the statements in April 2004 as an appeal for the return of $100,000 cash confiscated from Ian Carl and Juan Paolo at the San Francisco, California, airport in Dec. 2003.
In the typewritten statement, Mrs. Garcia had said: "My husband Carlos Garcia (two-star general in the Armed Forces) was assigned to the Comptroller’s Officer (sic) until Apr. 4, 2004. He receives a salary that is declared as income for tax purposes. In addition, Carlos receives travel money and expenses in excess of several thousands of dollars. I often travel with my husband on business, and travel expenses and shopping money in excess of $10,000 to $20,000 is provided to me. He also receives cash for travel and expenses from the businesses that are awarded contracts for military hardware. These businesses are in Europe and Asia. He also receives gifts and gratitude money from several Philippine companies that are awarded military contracts to build roads, bridges and military housing... My husband’s is the final signature for funding the contracts. The expense money, gratitude money and shopping money is not declared as income...."
In the handwritten addendum, Mrs. Garcia further had stated: "During these travels, my husband always bring (sic) me along and we are each given travel allowances by the proponent/host country... As a wife, I am also given an envelope as they called ‘shopping money’ that I can use for my own discretion; no receipts of how we use our stipends are even required. Business-class airfare, first-class hotel accommodations and transportation in (sic) are provided by the host/proponents and this happens on every trip since 1993 to present...."
The Garcias claimed that the affidavits did not prove the overt acts leading to plunder. They said the attesting papers from the US agents were not official documents. Too, that the method of taking the affidavits had violated the Miranda doctrine of informing Mrs. Garcia of her right to remain silent and to an attorney.
Composed of Justices Edilberto Sandoval, Rodolfo Ponferrada and Francisco Villaruz, the Sandiganbayan second division did not specifically uphold the Garcias’ arguments. It simply set a hearing for this afternoon to hear more evidence, if any, to determine probable cause to issue arrest warrants on Mrs. Garcia and the sons.
"What more proof do they want" an Ombudsman lawyer reluctantly opined, "when there’s already an admission of collusion in crime?" A graft-buster at the justice department cited the recent admission of a Pampanga mayor of being on jueteng payola to constitute evidence to prosecute him. "If that can be considered, what more the detailed admissions of Mrs. Garcia," the prosecutor said, "unless we are seeing here the early makings of acquittal?"
Atty. Leonard de Vera, head of an Integrated Bar observer panel to Garcia’s separate court martial for violating the Articles of War, noted that the Sandiganbayan did not mention a person’s right against incriminating a spouse. "This is in effect an admission against interest," he explained, "that is, an admission that constitutes proof of guilt."