The Inquirer's May 12 and 13 editorials virtually calling the Sandiganbayan's ruling on the Garcia plea-bargain agreement idiotic have no doubt added fillip to the perception of that court as a coddler of corrupt officials who steal big time! While it seems to have no problem sending small-time crooks (e.g., municipal treasurers, clerks, janitors, etc.) to jail, that court strains credulity and logic to absurd extent to find any reason to let big-time crooks (e.g., Cabinet officials, military generals, etc.) off the hook.
Ruminate, and weep for our country's justice system: a municipal treasurer was sentenced by that court to some 25 years in jail for having misspent public funds amounting to less than P50,000. In stark contrast, a retired military general is now free as a bird despite having pocketed bribes amounting to P303 million! Another VIP went scot-free despite being charged with having accepted a bribe to the tune of $2 million! And these are just examples of many other innumerable instances of iniquity.
In the case of retired Maj. Gen. Carlos Garcia, the Sandiganbayan twisted the rules of evidence around to suit its prejudgment or predilection to set him free. It shifted the burden of proof very conveniently. The Inquirer hit the nail on the head: "... everyone else knows it is the military general earning a five-digit salary per month but enjoying hundreds of millions in assets who must do the explaining." Indeed, it was not for the prosecution to explain where and how Garcia acquired such enormous sums of money. In unexplained wealth cases, if the accused refuses to "explain" his filthy lucre by invoking his "right against self-incrimination" or his "right to remain silent," such reticence guarantees jail time—no ifs, ands or buts about it.
But was the court expecting to see some receipts or notes signed by Garcia, and seeing none, it had to rule the way it did because, according to its spokesman, its hands were tied? That struck us as totally disingenuous, for in the final analysis, the court's predilections had long been unmasked when it granted him bail in accordance with the plea bargain agreement which downgraded the charge from plunder (non-bailable) to bribery (bailable)—even before approving that deal. Imagine, if you will, how ridiculous and laughable it would have been if that court disapproved that deal in the wake of its own order allowing the accused to post bail on the earlier agreed-upon lesser offense!
That interlocutory order, for all legal intents and purposes, had rendered the graver plunder case moot and academic. Everything had by then become a fait accompli. All that talk about the agreement per se still awaiting the court's approval was nothing but tommyrot. The final ruling had become a foregone conclusion.
The unkindest cut of all? The Ombudsman's prosecutors are now gloating ("that ruling has vindicated us"), and celebrating with their former boss, Merceditas Gutierrez, while the people (the aggrieved party) are being left to hang out to dry and twist in the wind!
STEPHEN L. MONSANTO,
Monsanto Law Office,
MY FAVORITE PAGES
▼
Monday, May 16, 2011
HON. CHIEF JUSTICE CORONA PLEASE POLICE YOUR OWN KIND
Straining logic to free big-time crooks
Loyola Heights, Quezon City
No comments:
Post a Comment