REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES}

CITY OF MANILA...........................} S.s.

x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x

J O I N T C O M P LA I N T – A F F I D AV I T

WE, Risa Hontiveros-Baraquel, Leah L. Navarro and Danilo D. Lim,

Filipino citizens and of legal age, subscribing under oath, hereby
depose and state that:

Prefatory Statement

In 2004, the campaign against graft and corruption took a

momentous turn with the prosecution and arrest of then Maj. Gen. Carlos
Garcia, comptroller of the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP). Criminal
cases were subsequently filed before the Sandiganbayan. It provided a
glimmer of hope against a bleak background where our country had been
notoriously top-ranked among the most corrupt in Asia. The prosecution
then declared that there was strong evidence. The people anticipated a
conviction. Six years later, at the height of the May 2010 elections, with
incidentally the end of the scandal-plagued Arroyo administration in sight,
a plea bargaining agreement was hatched. Despite it being viewed as
void and irregular the Sandiganbayan Second Division, where the cases
were heard, approved the same. Their decision being unjust, we must
hold these justices accountable for their action.

. Complainants, Risa Hontiveros-Baraquel is of legal age, Filipino, a

former Representative of the House of Representatives
representing Akbayan Party-List with address at 36-B Madasalin
Street, Sikatuna Village, Quezon City; Leah L. Navarro is of legal
age, Filipino with address at Unit 1601 BSA Tower, 108 Legaspi
Street, Legaspi Village, Makati City; and, Danilo D. Lim is of legal
age, Filipino and a former general of the Armed Forces of the
Philippines (AFP) with address at 14 Byron Street, Filinvest II,
Batasan Hills, Quezon City, where they may be served with notices
and processes of this Honorable Office;

. Respondents Justices Edilberto G. Sandoval, Teresita V. Diaz-

Baldos and Samuel R. Martires are justices of the Sandiganbayan,
particularly the Second Division with address at Sandiganbayan,
Commonwealth Avenue, Batasan Hills, Quezon City;

1
 . This complaint is brought before this Honorable Office as the
Secretary of Justice has the authority to act directly on any
matter within the jurisdiction of any of its prosecution offices or
services, as this present case;

. Complainants, who are avowed anti-corruption advocates, are

suing in a derivative capacity for the people of the Philippines as
this act of the respondents, discussed below, is injurious to the
Filipino people, runs contrary to our constitutional principles and
sends a wrong message that will long reverberate against our
morality and reputation as a people, to borrow an author’s words;

. Corollarily, the Office of the Ombudsman, the institution

mandated to prosecute and guard against wrongdoings of public
officers failed its mandate in this case. As concerned citizens we
need to take the cudgels for our people if our guardians could not
protect the people’s interests;

. Further, this event was described by the Committee on

Accountability of Public Officers and Investigations of the
Philippine Senate, in its Committee Report No. 27, as rooted in
the systemic corruption in the Armed Forces of the Philippines
(AFP). The transactions of the AFP, being a part of the
government, are subject to public scrutiny. Also as taxpayers, we
suffered injury since public funds were involved;

. In April 6, 2005, cases of plunder (R.A. 7080) and money-

laundering (R. A. 9160) against Maj. Gen. Carlos Garcia, his wife
Clarita and sons Juan Carlo and Ian Carl, were filed before the
Sandiganbayan and later, heard before the Second Division;

. In the information for plunder, which is a non-bailable offense, a

total of three hundred three million pesos (P303,000,000.00)
were allegedly illegally acquired;

. Sometime in March 2010, a joint motion pertaining to a Plea

2
 Bargaining Agreement (copy attached as Annex “A”) was filed
before said division. This was arrived at during trial, after the
prosecution had presented evidence. Salient contents of which
are;
a. Accused Garcia will plead guilty to the lesser offense of indirect
bribery and facilitating money-laundering
b. Accused will cede funds, personal and real properties to the
government amounting to one hundred thirty-five million four
hundred thirty-three thousand three hundred eighty-seven
pesos and eighty-four centavos (P 135, 433, 387.84)

. It was greeted with adverse public reaction and protests as the

agreement in its totality is favorable to the accused and was
deficient from the start. The undue haste, seeming irregularity
then, and the “secrecy” of the circumstances surrounding the
plea bargaining agreement (PBA, for brevity) prompted both
houses of Congress to investigate;

. During the Senate inquiry, the following information surfaced:

a.The plea bargain agreement was patently irregular
b. The consent of the offended party was not secured
c.Said agreement works in favor of the accused
d. Only a portion of the ill-gotten wealth will be returned to the
government
e. The Garcias get to keep some of the ill-gotten wealth
f. Accused Garcia will avoid a long prison sentence
(copy of Senate Findings and Recommendations attached as Annex
“B”)

12 The undue haste is manifest, as the PBA was approved on the

day the resignation of former Ombudsman Merceditas Guttierrez took
effect. The division beat to the punch whatever action or decision on
the case the incoming Ombudsman might take;

13. Irregularity is manifest as the PBA was executed way beyond

arraignment or even pre-trial as provided in Section 2 Rule 116 of the
Rules of Court;
3
 Sec. 2. Plea of guilty to a lesser offense. – At arraignment, the accused, with
the consent of the offended party and prosecutor, may be allowed by the trial
court to plead guilty to a lesser offense which is necessarily included in the
offense charged. After arraignment but before trial, the accused may still be
allowed to plead guilty to said lesser offense after withdrawing his plea of not
guilty. No amendment of the complaint or information is necessary.
(highlighting, ours)

14. The Rules are clear that plea bargaining should be done before
trial as repeated in Section 1 Rule 118 of the same Rules:

Section 1. Pre-trial; mandatory in criminal cases. – In all criminal cases

cognizable by the Sandiganbayan,Regional Trial Court, Metropolitan Trial

Court, Municipal Trial Court in Cities, Municipal Trial Court and Municipal
Circuit Trial Court, the court shall, after arraignment and within thirty (30)
days from the date the court acquires jurisdiction over the person of
the accused, unless a shorter period is provided for in special laws or
circulars of the Supreme Court, order a pre-trial conference to consider the
following:
(a) plea bargaining; xxx
(highlighting, ours)

15. Thus, the division disregarded the Rules of Court in approving

the PBA. Its reliance on the case of People vs. Mamarion which formed
part of the legal basis of the May 9, 2011 resolution is misplaced
because said case was decided by the Supreme Court based on the
old Rules of Court;

16. The PBA is also highly irregular and should not have been
approved as the required consent of the offended party was not sought
contrary, again, to the provision of Section 2 Rule 116 of the Rules of
Court;

Sec. 2. Plea of guilty to a lesser offense. – At arraignment, the accused,

with the consent of the offended party and prosecutor, may be allowed by the
trial court to plead guilty to a lesser offense which is necessarily included in the
offense charged xxx (highlighting ours)

4
 17. Notwithstanding the pronouncements of the Ombudsman that
in negotiating for plea bargaining, the prosecutors had routinely
not sought the consent of the offended party in the cases they
filed before the Sandiganbayan. One wrong, even when done
repeatedly will not become right;

18. This is a highly irregular practice as the Ombudsman or its

special prosecutors, arrogated upon themselves the role of
prosecutor and offended party at the same time. This cannot be,
even common sense will find this wrong;

19. These irregularities could have ended if the justices rejected

the PBA. Instead, the justices added some more. In said
resolution, the justices unilaterally modified the plea which was
originally, for “indirect bribery” to “direct bribery”.

20. And this was done without the consent of the offended party,
again. Nowhere in the records was it indicated that the accused
nor prosecution agreed to this modification, either. This action of
the justices is totally unjust considering the dark clouds of
aforementioned circumstances hovering over the PBA. Nowhere
in the Rules of Court were the judge or justices authorized to
change the plea of the accused in a plea bargaining agreement;

21. To reiterate, according to the Supreme Court, it is the duty of

the court to inquire into the circumstances upon which the plea
bargaining agreement is premised. They (justices) would have
noticed the failure of the prosecution to secure the consent of the
offended party, which immediately would be the Armed Forces of
the Philippines. They would have noticed that the amount to be
restituted which is more than one hundred thirty five million
pesos (P135 Million) is glaringly small compared to the three
hundred three million pesos (P 303 Million) obtained illegally by
the accused. They would have noted the change of tune of the

5
 prosecutors from saying previously that they have a strong case
to saying afterwards that the case is weak;

22. Finally, it is a complete turn around from the declaration of the

division in denying the motion for bail on January 7, 2010, when
they declared that there is evidence showing that the guilt of the
accused is strong;

23. The foregoing circumstances are clear as daylight as to cause

the justices to disapprove or reject said plea bargaining
agreement;

24. Instead, on May 9, 2011, respondents despite the foregoing

facts and without due regard to the congressional findings which
are judicial notice, approved said agreement in the even dated
resolution containing the unjust interlocutory order (copy
attached as Annex “C”);

25. By virtue thereof, respondents, knowingly and willfully issued

an interlocutory order which was clearly unjust and unfounded
and violative of Article 206 of the Revised Penal Code. The injury
is obvious, it struck a decisive blow on the anti-graft and
corruption campaign. Hundreds of millions of public funds which
could have been used to deliver public services to the people are
lost;

Article 206. Unjust Interlocutory Order. – Any judge who shall

knowingly render an unjust interlocutory order or decree shall suffer
the penalty of arresto mayor in its minimum period and suspension;
but if he shall have acted by reason of inexcusable negligence or
ignorance and the interlocutory order or decree be manifestly unjust,
the penalty shall be suspension.

26. According to the Supreme Court in the case of Gallardo vs.

People of the Philippines, Sandiganbayan, et al, [G.R. 142030 ],
“an order is interlocutory if it does not dispose of a case
completely, but leaves something more to be done on its merits”;

6
 27. The order approving the plea bargain is interlocutory since it
did not dispose of the case completely and left something else to
be done by the Second Division;

28. For this reason, we hold the justices of the Sandiganbayan

Second Division liable for their unlawful acts and omissions in
connection with the approval of the PBA. We are thus requesting
this Honorable Office to investigate and prosecute the justices to
the full extent of the law;

29. We therefore jointly execute this joint complaint-affidavit to attest

to the truth of the foregoing and to cause the prosecution of
respondents Justices Edilberto Sandoval, Teresita Diaz-Baldoz and
Samuel Martires for violation of the above-mentioned provision of
the Revised Penal Code and other applicable criminal statutes.

Affiants further sayeth naught.

This 18th day of May 2011, in Manila, Philippines.

RISA HONTIVEROS-BARAQUEL LEAH L. NAVARRO DANILO D. LIM

Affiant Affiant Affiant

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this 18th day of May 2011 in Manila,
Philippines, by the affiants after exhibiting to me their identifications enumerated below; and
certifying that they voluntarily executed and understood this affidavit.

RISA HONTIVEROS-BARAQUEL exhibited to me her Passport No. 0136128 issued on May

24, 2006 with expiry date on May 24, 2011 at DFA-Manila;

LEAH LOPEZ NAVARRO - exhibited to me her MTRCB ID No. 021;

DANILO DELAPUZ LIM - exhibited to me his Postal ID No. 9506481 issued on 20 July 2010
at Quezon City.