Sandigan orders ex-AFP general Garcia to pay P406.3M fine over conviction

The Sandiganbayan has ordered retired Major General Carlos Garcia to pay over P406.3 million worth of fine over his conviction on crimes of direct bribery and facilitating money laundering,

In a resolution dated July 30 but released this week, the anti-graft court said that while Garcia already served his principal jail sentence and was released last August 2023, he is yet to settle the fine imposed to him after he pleaded guilty to lesser offenses under a 2011 plea bargaining agreement.

Garcia was initially charged with plunder, which has a punishment of reclusion perpetua or 20 to 40 years of imprisonment.

The same plea bargaining deal also provides that Garcia agreed to return over P135.4 million of his assets to the government.

The former military comptroller spent four years, five months, and seven days in prison.

“Accused Garcia is incorrect in arguing that the period for subsidiary imprisonment [in case of insolvency amid pending fines] is automatically served after the service of the principal imprisonment, without any action of the Court. As such, the prosecution's Motion for Execution dated February 1, 2024 of the dispositive portion in Criminal Case No. SB-09-CRM-0194 [on Garcia’s direct bribery conviction] is hereby granted with regard to the fine of P1.5 million,”  the Sandiganbayan said.

“In this case [under SB-09-CRM-0194], there was no need for the prosecution to present evidence that the amount of P135,433 ,387.84 million was ill-gotten. Movant [Garica] pleaded guilty to the crime of direct bribery and was judicially admitted civilly liable to restitute properties in the total amount aforementioned. That is because the properties were ill-gotten,” it added.

For the court-imposed fine under SB Criminal Case No. 28107 concerning Garcia’s conviction on facilitating money laundering, the Sandiganbayan said that the amount of P135,433,387.84  million surrendered by Garcia to the Philippine government is the former military official’s compensation to the state for his criminal acts and an admission of civil liability arising from the commission of a crime.

The anti-graft court said that since Garcia pleaded guilty to the crime of direct bribery, it is duty-bound to impose the penalty for facilitating money laundering as dictated by law which, in this case, is imprisonment and a fine that is "not less than three times the value of the gift”.

“The inescapable conclusion is that the "gift" referred to in Article 210 of the Revised Penal Code is equivalent to the amount ceded to the Republic (government) by way of restitution (compensation). Furthermore, it must be used as the basis for calculating the fine imposed upon the accused,” the anti-graft court said.

“Thus, the imposition of a fine of P406,300,162.00 in Criminal Case No. 28107 was made in accordance with law and cannot be characterized as oppressive or unconstitutional,” the court added.

Garcia, in his defense, said making him pay such fines is unfair because all of his pay, allowances, and retirement benefits from his time in the Armed Forces of the Philippines were likewise forfeited as a result of a Court Martial case, and that he has lost all means to survive and earn money. 

Garcia also said that the only properties he has left are some personal items and the family home, which is exempt from execution under the Family Code.

Likewise, he said that his daily needs such as clothing, and other provisions are sourced from his friends and family. 

The Sandiganbayan, however, dismissed Garcia's arguments by citing that the former military official's assets were already forfeited before the plea bargaining deal was submitted in March 2010 and approved by the anti-graft court in May 2011.  

It said this only means that Garcia entered into a plea bargaining agreement aware of the consequences that he would have to pay huge amounts of fine as part of pleading guilty to lesser offenses even after a certain amount of his assets were already forfeited in favor of the government.

"It is this same plea-bargaining agreement which became the basis for the Decision dated July 5, 2022 of this Court, imposing the penalty of fine for Direct Bribery in Crim. Case No. 28107. Clearly, the forfeiture of the properties occurred well before the finality of the decision. Accused Garcia cannot claim that the surrender of properties is a supervening event," the Sandiganbayan said.

"Accused Garcia's unsubstantiated allegations of insolvency cannot justify an exception to the doctrine of immutability of judgments, nor can it be used to stay the execution of this court's decision. A supervening event cannot rest on unproved or uncertain facts. As discussed above, the determination of whether or not the accused has properties to settle the fine imposed must be done through the execution of the judgment and the report of the sheriff," it added.—AOL, GMA Integrated News