G.R. Nos. 207340 and 207349. September 16, 2020.
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, PETITIONER, VS. SANDIGANBAYAN (SPECIAL SECOND DIVISION), OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, OFFICE OF THE SPECIAL PROSECUTOR AND MAJ. GEN. CARLOS F. GARCIA (RET.), RESPONDENTS.

FACTS

On December 19, 2003, US customs agents seized US$100,000.00 from the sons of retired Major General Carlos F. Garcia (Garcia). On April 6, 2004, Garcia’s wife, Clarita, executed statements to recover the funds, attesting that her husband received salary, travel money, expenses, and “gratitude money” from businesses awarded military contracts. On April 5, 2005, the Office of the Special Prosecutor filed an Information for plunder against Garcia and his family. Separate cases for plunder and money laundering were consolidated before the Sandiganbayan. Garcia pleaded not guilty. On January 7, 2010, the Sandiganbayan denied Garcia’s petition for bail, finding strong evidence against him. On March 16, 2010, the Office of the Special Prosecutor and Garcia filed a Joint Motion for Approval of Plea Bargaining Agreement, approved by then Ombudsman Merceditas N. Gutierrez. Under the agreement, Garcia would withdraw his not guilty plea to plunder and plead guilty to the lesser offense of indirect bribery, and to facilitating money laundering instead of money laundering. He also agreed to cede P135,433,387.84 worth of properties to the government. On May 4, 2010, the Sandiganbayan ordered Garcia to execute deeds to transfer the properties to the State. The Republic, through the Office of the Solicitor General, filed a Petition for Certiorari assailing the Plea Bargaining Agreement.

ISSUE

Whether the Office of the Solicitor General has the legal standing to question, via certiorari, the Plea Bargaining Agreement entered into by the Office of the Special Prosecutor with the approval of the Ombudsman.

RULING

No. The Petition for Certiorari was dismissed. The Office of the Solicitor General’s broad power of representation is not absolute and must be harmonized with statutes granting other government bodies the power to represent the government. The power to enter into plea bargaining agreements in cases within the Sandiganbayan’s jurisdiction is expressly vested by law in the Office of the Special Prosecutor under the supervision and control of the Ombudsman. Allowing the Solicitor General to question the Special Prosecutor’s prosecutorial discretion, exercised with the Ombudsman’s approval, would impliedly grant the Solicitor General supervision over a constitutional body, which cannot be countenanced. The Ombudsman approved the agreement based on its assessment of the evidence. The Sandiganbayan did not commit grave abuse of discretion in acknowledging the Plea Bargaining Agreement and ordering the conveyance of properties.