Amount in plea bargain deal ‘overstated’

by P17.8 million - Drilon

The amount involved in the plea bargaining agreement between the Ombudsman and
former AFP Comptroller, Maj. Gen. Carlos Garcia, is overstated by P17.8 million due to a
discrepancy in the currency exchange rate that was used.
This fact was elicited Thursday morning from the special prosecutor assigned to the
plunder case upon questioning from Senator Franklin M. Drilon during the Blue Ribbon
Committee hearing on the controversial plea bargaining deal last year.
Drilon noted that the exchange rate used in the plea bargain agreement was P56.41 to a
dollar while at the time of the agreement, the rate had gone down to P46.153 for every $1.00.
The Ilonggo senator also expressed dismay over the failure of the government prosecutors
to demand that Garcia surrender another P50 million in cash which he had managed to withdraw
from depository banks when he learned that he was under investigation for plunder.
Drilon scoffed at the claim of Special Prosecutor Wendell Barreras-Sulit that the plea
bargain deal was a “win-win solution”, saying her agency had apparently put the public interest
below that of Garcia when it failed to insist on restitution of the amount withdrawn from banks.

Below is a transcript of the interpellation conducted by Drilon:

Interpellation of Sen. Franklin Drilon during hearing of Blue Ribbon Committee ON GARCIA
PLEA BARGAIN
27 January 2011

Drilon: This agreement indicates allegedly that a total of P135,433,387.84 was surrendered. Is
that a correct reflection of the agreement?

Atty. Wendell Barreras-Sulit (Special Prosecutor): Yes we admit that that is what appears in the
plea bargaining agreement.

Drilon: How the agreement enumerates the P135.4 million. First, what I know is that the dollar-
exchange rate is fixed at P56.41. For example, a cash deposit in the sum or evaluation of the
Trump Park Tower Condominium at $765,000 is placed at an equivalent peso of P43,155,180
using the exchange rate of P56.41. The agreement in plea bargaining is undated, but it would
appear to have been signed by the Ombudsman on February 25, 2010.

Sulit: [February] 26, your honor.

Drilon: Well, I am looking at the bar code here of the Office of the Ombudsman. It states 2-25-
2010. That’s the bar code and I assume that this was the date when it was signed by the
Ombudsman. Now, I checked the exchange rate on that date—February 25, 2010. The exchange
rate is P46.153, as against an exchange rate that you used of P56.412. The same exchange rate
was used all over. We have the Bank of the Philippine Islands—$23,799; Banco de Oro—$0.69;
Landbank of the Philippines—$674,276.133 with a total of $728,066.32. Again, the peso
equivalent is P41,071,677.24 at an exchange rate of P56.412.

The same with Citibank account--$201,166.08 at an exchange rate of P56.412, peso equivalent
P11,348.180. Citibank--$44,354.86 at an exchange rate of P56.412 with peso equivalent of
P2,502,146.

The first question is, why did you use P56.412 as an exchange rate when the exchange rate at
that date was P46.153. Can I ask General Garcia?

Garcia: The reference of the list of properties was based on the information attachment that were
filed (inaudible).

Drilon: I am talking of the exchange rate.

Garcia: Like for the Trump, the $765,000 cost was converted into peso at that point in time, and
that was the cost included in the charge sheet. So all the costings that were attached to the charge
sheet were the ones used in the preparation of the plea bargain.

Drilon: …because if you are going to use the exchange rate at the time the agreement was
signed, the dollar amounts were overstated by about P17.8 million. Would you agree with that?

Sulit: I agree with that your honor.

Drilon: What was the basis of… evaluation of $765,000 of the Trump Park Tower?

Sulit: That was the acquisition cost your honor presented in court.

Drilon: Also, on the personal properties, I noticed that the vehicles here were anywhere from 7
years old to 17 years old—and the amounts stated were based on what valuation?

Sulit: Also based on acquisition cost as per documents presented in court and supporting papers
on the resolution of the Honorable Ombudsman Marcelo.

Drilon: Again, insofar as real estate is concerned, in Iloilo, 4 properties allegedly with a value of
P10,699,320 was indicated. How was this arrived at and what was the basis of the evaluation?

Sulit: That was also the acquisition cost based on the fact finding investigation then headed by
Ombudsman Marcelo.

Drilon: Why was the P50 million not part of the plea bargain that was mentioned here earlier by
Ombudsman Marcelo?
Marcelo: The accounts were withdrawn by Gen. Garcia after I issued a preventive suspension
against him. Based on the AMLC investigation, if I remember correctly, between P50-70 million
were withdrawn. There was no restitution that was required.

Drilon: Why was there no restitution?

Sulit: At the time the information was filed, those accounts were already withdrawn, and even in
the preliminary investigation and the fact finding investigation, the team of former Ombudsman
never established a paper trail as to where those money went.

Drilon: But these were in fact withdrawn?

Sulit: They were in fact withdrawn.

Drilon: In other words, if you agree that they were in fact withdrawn, the amount is floating
somewhere?

Sulit: The amount is floating somewhere your honor.

Drilon: Why was it not included in the part of the restitution?

Sulit: We may not have included it in the plea bargaining agreement but there’s still a chance to
get them back in the forfeiture cases filed in the 4th Division of the Sandiganbayan.

Drilon: Wasn’t it the best way to recover this that you make it part of the plea bargain that that
P50 million be restituted? Because the defendant here was practically pleading that he be
allowed to enter into this plea bargain in order that he can be released from detention. Why did
you not insist that the P50 million be restituted?

Sulit: In the plea bargaining, in this bargaining… win-win solution...

Drilon: My dear, you know this is not a collective bargaining agreement. This is a question of
public interest. Public funds are involved. It is not a win-win situation. Come on, is that your
attitude as prosecutor?

Sulit: No your honors. Of course that is not our attitude…

Drilon: This is not a collective bargaining agreement as held by the Supreme Court in these
cases. This is not a matter of bargaining.
Sulit: We really wanted to protect the interest of the state…

Drilon: So what do you mean of win-win situation? You mean Garcia will win?

Sulit: No your honors. Perhaps we even won if we get the conviction in two criminal cases and
with the perpetual disqualification to hold public office, so he will have a criminal record and he
will have to return all of the properties that the prosecution has proven in court.
Drilon: So why did you not insist on the restitution of this P50 million which you knew was
withdrawn?

Sulit: Perhaps your honor at the stage of the plea bargaining you can talk to the prosecutors here
that first handled it.

Drilon: Why? Did you not sign the plea bargain?

Sulit: I signed your honor. There must be other reasons why we cannot get back the money
anymore from Gen. Garcia. So what we’re trying to get are all the properties and all the monies
and bank accounts that we have proven in court and which we have documented…

Drilon: The money was floating around somewhere. You could have insisted for public interest
that the P50 million should have been restituted and let Mr. Garcia find ways and means to have
it restituted.

Now, Mr. Garcia, your sons were charged sometime in 2009 for this $100,000…

Garcia: Yes your honor.

Drilon: And they were required to post bail?

Garcia: Yes your honor.

Drilon: $2 million in total?

Garcia: That is not right. The bail given for my 3 sons was $25,000 plus 5 persons that would
attest that they will produce my sons… so the cash value is $25,000 that were sourced from the
different friends and relatives of my sons.

Drilon: And the remaining $150,000?

Garcia: It was covered by the signature bonds. 5 persons gave signature bonds.

Drilon: Were the signature bonds secured by any real estate or any…?

Garcia: No your honor. It’s just plain signature bond.

Drilon: That’s the same case with your wife Clarita?

Garcia: Yes your honor. My wife posted $20,000.

Drilon: So the total cash bond is about $70,000?

Garcia: $90,000 because I have 3 sons, plus each member of the family has 5 signature bonds.