CA reverses 2013 OP dismissal of Ombudsman special prosecutor, orders her reinstatement

The Court of Appeals (CA) has reversed a ruling of the Office of the President (OP) in 2013 that ordered the dismissal of Ombudsman Special Prosecutor Wendell Barreras-Sulit in connection with a plea-bargaining agreement (plebara) she signed with then Maj. Gen. Carlos Garcia who was charged with plunder and money laundering.

In a decision written by Associate Justice Zenaida T. Galapate Laguilles, the CA granted the petition of Barreras Sulit as it ruled that the Office of the President – then President Benigno S. Aquino III – committed an error

in ruling against her in an administrative case.

The CA ordered the reinstatement of Barreras Sulit to her post.

“We grant the instant petition for review. The decision dated July 18, 2013, and resolution dated Dec. 6, 2013, of the Office of the President, dismissing petitioner Wendell Barreras Sulit from the service are hereby reversed and set aside,” the CA ruled.

Garcia was charged with plunder by the Office of the Ombudsman in connection with the millions of pesos and properties registered in his name and those of the members of his family.

He was also charged with money laundering by the Anti-Money Laundering Council (AMLaC) which moved for the freezing of his and his family members’ accounts in banks and their assets.

Then Ombudsman Merceditas Gutierrez authorized Barreras Sulit to enter into a plea bargaining agreement with Garcia after a review of the cases showed that the government had weak evidence.

The Sandiganbayan approved the agreement between Garcia and the Office of the Ombudsman represented by Barreras Sulit.

With the agreement, Garcia returned to the government more than 1135 million stashed here and abroad.

After Ombudsman Gutierrez was made to resign, Barreras Sulit was charged administratively, then dismissed as chief special prosecutor. She raised the issue to the CA.

In its decision, the CA disagreed with the Office of the President’s view that the plea bargaining agreement was unlawfully executed. It said the agreemen was lawful because it was executed under the direct supervision of Gutierrez as Ombudsman.

The fact that the agreemebnt was approved by the Sandiganbayan showed that it is above board and within the process mandated by law, the CA stressed.

The appellate court pointed out that the Office of the President has no authority to determine whether to not the evidence presented before the Sandiganbayan on a case was strong enough to sustain a conviction.

“The act of the Office of the President in determining the probative value of the evidence presented in the cases of plunder and money laundering in these administrative proceedings is not only misplaced and uncalled for but also constitutes an encroachment on judicial power. The authority rests solely upon the appropriate court – the Sandiganbayan in this case,” the CA said.

“We find it unfair to accuse petitioner Barreras Sulit of gross inexcusable negligence and bad faith in the performance of her function as Special Prosecutor as there was no substantial evidence that she was remiss in protecting the interest of the state. We believe that the Plebara was the outcome of a prudent, reasonable, and practical evaluation of the cases against Maj. Gen. Carlos Garcia, a solution that would best serve the interest of the nation and its people,” the CA added.