Plea Bargaining

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES REGIONAL TRIAL COURT Branch ___ Tenth Judicial Region Misamis Oriental

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES Plaintiff ,

CRIM. CASE NO. 2017-3311

- versus – JUAN DELA CRUZ

For:

Violation of Sections 5

& 11 of Art 2of RA 9165 Accused.

x ---------------------------------------/

PLEA-BARGAINING PLEA-BARGAINING PROPOSAL COMES NOW the Accused, by and through the undersigned counsel on record, and unto this Honorable Court, most respectfully submits the following Plea-Bargaining Plea-Bargaining Proposal for the Honorable Court’s consideration and approval, and avers that: 1.

That accused has been charged for Violation of Sections 5 and

11 , Art. 2 of R.A. 9165. 2.

That accused comes before the Honorable Court with this Plea-

Bargaining Proposal before the Prosecution rests its case. Notwithstanding Rule 116, Section 2 which allows the plea to a lesser offense at the arraignment, the Supreme Court has nonetheless sustained plea bargaining during trial and even after the Prosecution has finished presenting its evidence and rested its case. 3.

Thus, in Daan in Daan vs. Sandiganbayan, Sandiganbayan, G.R. G.R. Nos. 163972-77, March March

28, 2008, 2008, the Supreme Court ruled for plea bargaining agreement, and in support thereof cited, among others, People vs. Villarama, G.R. No. 99287, Page 1 of 3

The world’s largest digital library

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.



June 23, 1992, 210 SCRA 246; People vs. Kayanan, 172 Phil. 728, 729; People vs. Parohinog, G.R. No. L-47462, February 28, 1980, 96 SCRA 373, 377 , in this wise – wise –

“ In People vs. Villarama, the Court ruled that the acceptance of an offer to plead guilty to a lesser offense is not demandable as a matter of right but is a matter that is addressed entirely entirely to the sound discretion of the trial court, viz x x x In such situation, jurisprudence has provided the trial court and the Office of theProsecutor with a yardstick within which their discretion may be properly exercised. Thus, in People vs. Kayanan (L-39355, May 31, 1978, 83 SCRA 437, 450), We held that the rules allow such a plea only when the prosecution does not have sufficient eveidence to establish the guilt of the crime charged. In his concurring opinion in People vs. Parohinog (G.R No. L-47462, February 28, 1980, 96 SCRA 373, 377), then Justice Antonio Barredo explained clearly and tersely the rationale of the law: x x x After the prosecution had already rested, the only basis ba sis on which the fiscal and the court could rightfully act in allowing the appellant to change his former plea of not guilty to murder to guilty to the lesser crime of homicide could be nothing more nothing less than the evidence already in record. The reason for this being that Section 4 of Rule 118 (now Section 2, Rule 116) under which a plea for lesses offense is allowed was not and could not have been intended as a procedure for compromise, much less bargaining. (Emphasis supplied)”

4.

That accused Juan dela Cruz, hereby withdraws his plea of not

guilty to both charges and offers to enter a plea of guilty to the lesser offense under Section 12, which is necessarily included in the offense charged. Accused also offers to enter a plea of guilt under Section 12 to “use of dangerous drugs”. 5.

That accused also prays that the circumstance of plea of guilt be

appreciated in his favor in the imposition of the penalty. Respectfully submitted.



ATTY. PNFC Counsel for Accused PTR No. 3677279 A 1/11/18 Manila City IBP No. 031088; 2/2/18; Manila Roll No. 62838; Page No. 332; Book XXVI NC 2018-078 MCLE Compliance No V-0022195

At my instance and with my conformity: conformity:

Juan dela Cruz Accused

Plea Bargaining

Recommend Documents