But she said she remained open to scuttle the deal if the latest testimonies from former military budget officer George Rabusa and former state auditor Heidi Mendoza warranted this.

Gutierrez vented her frustration on former Ombudsman Simeon Marcelo and former special prosecutor Dennis Villa-Ignacio for writing a letter to President Benigno Aquino III purportedly “muddling” the issue to make her team look bad.

“We can probably swear to God, if somebody profited here, may he or she be struck by thunder and die this instant,” she said.

“We are not hiding anything here. We want the public to know there is no foolishness or illegal fixes. This is disheartening because here we are doing our job and we will be subject to trial by publicity from these false accusations.”

Gutierrez, who accused Marcelo and Villa-Ignacio of feeding erroneous information to the President, and her team have been criticized for being less than transparent in handling the plea bargain deal with Garcia.

Marcelo claimed he had a strong case against Garcia, but Gutierrez belittled the work she inherited from him and said that she had very little evidence to work on.

Gutierrez told the House committee on justice that she saw no reason why she should seek the help of Marcelo and Villa-Ignacio “who left the office for whatever reason because his team that crafted the case was left behind.”

No animosity

“We don’t have any animosity. It is not my habit to consult my predecessor if I can get accurate or proper guidance from my people. Why should I go back to the past? That’s already past tense,” she said.

Gutierrez, however, stressed that her office was open to pulling out the plea bargain deal depending on the assessment of the Rabusa and Mendoza testimonies.

“We still have to look at documents that would corroborate the testimony of Heidi Mendoza. I cannot at this point already say we have a position with regard to the plea bargain pending with Sandiganbayan. After we have the recommendation of the committee on justice as to how we go about it, we are open to study whatever documents we will get from this committee.”

Mendoza gave a contrasting picture of the two Ombudsmen
—while Marcelo was encouraging and helpful (he gave her money for her airline tickets in her investigation out of his own pocket), Gutierrez did not even ask her about the case although she was supportive of Mendoza’s other efforts.

Marcelo and Villa-Ignacio were openly giving Mendoza counsel during the hearing.

Not enough evidence

Ilocos Norte Rep. Rodolfo Fariñas, irked by the heated exchange between the two Ombudsmen, offered to host a dinner to sort out their differences. Gutierrez accepted his invitation.

“We don’t have enough evidence to convict General Garcia. The only evidence was the letter from Clarita (wife of Garcia) on bribery, so we bargained. We go by evidence, not presumption. There was an audit investigation by Mendoza and the report she made alone only pointed to AFP transactions without linking Garcia. The evidence in the plea bargain and the investigation of the AFP transactions are different, and we cannot link these to show how Garcia amassed his fortune,” said Gutierrez.

Court should decide

On Rabusa, Gutierrez said: “We still have to find out what documents he has to change our position over the plea bargain agreement. Is there a statement by Rabusa that all of this went to General Garcia? So I created a panel to investigate Rabusa’s testimony. I don’t think Marcelo et al. have that evidence before they filed the case in court.”

Gutierrez said that it was up to the court to decide whether she did right, stressing her goal was to ensure that “we end up as the winner.”

“Nowhere in the information or resolution is it stated that the AFP or its representatives participated. What was stated was he accumulated wealth because of contracts without any mention of who they were and what kind of contractors they were,” she said.

For his part, Marcelo said: “The case is very strong. You cannot talk about separate sets of evidence and Garcia himself did not question the substance of the information we filed. Their properties were spread between him and his wife and their sons, they are co-conspirators.”

This means, he said, the wife’s admission could be used as evidence.

Gil Cabacungan, Jr., Phil. Daily Inquirer