CA reinstates Ombudsman prosecutor

The Court of Appeals on Wednesday ordered the reinstatement of the Office of the Ombudsman’s chief special prosecutor after she was sacked by the Aquino administration in connection with a plea-bargaining agreement entered into with a retired military official charged with plunder.

A 29-page decision of the CA Special 10th Division, dated July 22, 2016 and penned by Associate Justice Zenaida Galapate-Laguilles, ordered the reinstatement of chief special prosecutor Wendell Barreras-Sulit.

The CA ruled that Malacañang, during the stint of President Benigno Aquino 3rd and Executive Secretary Paquito Ochoa Jr., committed an error and usurped the authority of the courts with an order dismissing Sulit from her post as top prosecutor of the Office of the Ombudsman.

The decision dated July 18, 2013 and resolution dated December 6, 2013 of the Office of the President, dismissing petitioner Wendell Barreras-Sulit from the service, are hereby reversed and set aside,” said the ruling, which was concurred in by Associate Justices Marlene Sison and Mario Lopez.

Through a plea bargain, retired major general Carlos Garcia got away from a plunder charge filed by the Office of the Ombudsman

A lifestyle check had shown millions of pesos and pieces of property under Garcia’s name and members of his family, including a Trump Plaza condominium in New York.

He was also charged with money laundering, and the Anti-Money Laundering Council even moved to freeze assets of the Garcias.

The appellate court did not agree with the findings of Malacañang that the plea-bargaining deal with Garcia, which allowed the general to plead to a lesser offense, was unlawfully executed.

It said the plea-bargaining agreement was lawful because Sulit executed the same under direct supervision of then Ombudsman Marceditas Gutierrez.

Gutierrez and Sulit entered into the bargaining agreement with Garcia, asking to return assets to the Philippine government and allowing his plunder case to be downgraded to direct bribery charges.

Garcia returned P135,433,387.84 to the government under the agreement.

Gutierrez and Sulit said the plea-bargaining agreement was most advantageous to the government because it would be impossible to sustain a conviction.

The case filed by then Ombudsman Simeon Marcelo and Special Prosecutor Dennis Villa-Ignacio for plunder was allegedly weak.

This finding was upheld by the anti-graft court Sandiganbayan.

When Aquino assumed the presidency, however, he forced Gutierrez to resign from her post to be able to appoint a new Ombudsman, and then dismissed Sulit.

But the Court of Appeals stated that the plea-bargaining agreement was also approved by the Sandiganbayan, which makes the agreement aboveboard and within the process mandated by law.

The three-man court ruled that Malacañang then had no authority to determine whether the evidence presented before the Sandiganbayan was strong enough to sustain a conviction.

“The act of the OP (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 of judicial power. The authority rests solely upon the appropriate court—the Sandiganbayan in this case,” the ruling stated.

“We find it unfair to accuse petitioner 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 [bargaining agreement] 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 decision said.

source:  Manila Times

By law, PAO can’t notarize commercial documents

Dear PAO,
I am a part-time real estate agent in my hometown. I was able to close a deal with a client who was looking to purchase a house and lot in a subdivision. To complete the transaction, we needed to prepare an absolute deed of sale and have it notarized. We thought about going to a Public Attorney’s Office (PAO) in our area so we can have it made and notarized for free, since I have heard that the PAO does not charge for its legal assistance. Before we were able to go to the PAO office, however, one of my co-agents informed me that the PAO does not prepare and notarize documents such as deed of sale. Luckily there was a notary public nearby so we just went there to have our documents made and notarized although we still paid him some fees for his services.

Because of this, and for purposes of future transactions in my work as a real estate agent, I want to confirm whether the PAO can make and notarize a deed of sale for us and whether it is free of charge. Thank you! 
Octavia

Dear Octavia,
As a background, the Public Attorney’s Office (PAO) is a government office that provides free legal assistance to the public not just by representing clients as its legal counsel in court hearings, but also through preparation of legal documents and administration of oaths related to the performance of its duties. As provided for in the PAO Operations Manual, in accordance with Republic Act (RA) 9406, also known as the PAO Law, public attorneys are also given the authority to perform non-judicial services that include documentation of legal documents and administration of oaths. This authority is specifically mentioned in Section 3 and Section 5 of Article X of the PAO Operations Manual, which states:

“Section 3. Documentation. Requests for the preparation of affidavits, notices and other documents must be attended to immediately.

Included in this service is administering oaths pursuant to Republic Act 9406. Requests for documentation services shall not be subjected to the merit test, and neither shall it be necessary to accomplish the Interview Sheet. Again, care should be taken that documentation services are availed of only by indigents. Hence, requests for the preparation of deeds of sale of real properties and other commercial documents shall be denied.”

xxxx.

“Section 5. Authority to Administer Oaths. – Public Attorneys shall have the general authority to administer oaths in connection with the performance of their official duty free of charge.”

As stated in the above-cited provisions, while the PAO has legal authority to prepare documents and administer oaths to notarize documents, this authority is not absolute. This is because these services, specifically the preparation of documents, are only for those who are indigents. And to qualify as an indigent, it is necessary to prove that one’s individual monthly net income does not exceed the following amounts:

1. If residing in Metro Manila, P14,000 a month;

2. If residing in other cities, P13,000 a month;

3. If residing in all other places, P12,000 a month (Section 3, Article II, PAO Operations Manual).

Furthermore, even if a person is qualified as an indigent, the aforementioned provision regarding free documentation services by the PAO expressly states that preparation of deeds of sale and other commercial documents is prohibited. This, therefore, answers your question as to whether the PAO can prepare and notarize a deed of sale since it clearly appears from the above-mentioned provisions that preparation and notarization of a deed of sale, which is a commercial document, is not allowed with the PAO. Thus, it can be seen here that while the other services of the PAO are generally open to indigents and free of charge, the handling of documentation and notarization of commercial documents are among those that cannot be accommodated by the legal services of the PAO in accordance with the law.

Again, we find it necessary to mention that this opinion is solely based on the facts you have narrated and our appreciation of the same. The opinion may vary when the facts are changed.

We hope that we were able to enlighten you on the matter.

Editor’s note: Dear PAO is a daily column of the Public Attorney’s Office. Questions for Chief Acosta may be sent to dearpao@manilatimes.net