The Sandiganbayan denied the petitioner's motion to plea bargain despite a favorable recommendation from the prosecution. The petitioner sought to plead guilty to lesser crimes than those originally charged for falsifying documents and malversation. Specifically, the petitioner sought to plead guilty to falsifying documents as a private individual rather than a public officer, and to failure to render accounts rather than malversation. The prosecution found the proposed plea bargain acceptable as it would help strengthen their case against the principal accused. However, the Sandiganbayan denied the motion, finding no cogent reason to justify approving the plea bargain. The petitioner argues this was a grave abuse of discretion.
The Sandiganbayan denied the petitioner's motion to plea bargain despite a favorable recommendation from the prosecution. The petitioner sought to plead guilty to lesser crimes than those originally charged for falsifying documents and malversation. Specifically, the petitioner sought to plead guilty to falsifying documents as a private individual rather than a public officer, and to failure to render accounts rather than malversation. The prosecution found the proposed plea bargain acceptable as it would help strengthen their case against the principal accused. However, the Sandiganbayan denied the motion, finding no cogent reason to justify approving the plea bargain. The petitioner argues this was a grave abuse of discretion.
The Sandiganbayan denied the petitioner's motion to plea bargain despite a favorable recommendation from the prosecution. The petitioner sought to plead guilty to lesser crimes than those originally charged for falsifying documents and malversation. Specifically, the petitioner sought to plead guilty to falsifying documents as a private individual rather than a public officer, and to failure to render accounts rather than malversation. The prosecution found the proposed plea bargain acceptable as it would help strengthen their case against the principal accused. However, the Sandiganbayan denied the motion, finding no cogent reason to justify approving the plea bargain. The petitioner argues this was a grave abuse of discretion.
DAAN, Insofar as the malversation cases are concerned, the prosecution
G.R. Nos. 163972-77 was likewise amenable to the offer of said accused to plead guilty to Petitioner, the lesser crime of failure of an accountable officer to render Present: accounts because: AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J., - versus - x x x JOSELITO RANIERO J. DAAN has already restituted the total Acting Chairperson, TINGA,* CHICO-NAZARIO, NACHURA, and REYES, JJ. THE HON. SANDIGANBAYAN amount of P18,860.00 as per official receipt issued by the provincial (Fourth Division), government of Leyte dated February 26, 2002. In short, the damage Promulgated: caused to the government has already been restituted x x x.[3] Respondent. March 28, 2008 The Sandiganbayan, in the herein assailed Resolution,[4] dated x--------------------------------------------------- March 25, 2004, denied petitioners Motion to Plea Bargain, despite ------x favorable recommendation by the prosecution, on the main ground DECISION that no cogent reason was presented to justify its approval.[5] AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.: The Sandiganbayan likewise denied petitioner's Motion for Joselito Raniero J. Daan (petitioner), one of the accused in Criminal Reconsideration in a Resolution dated May 31, 2004. Cases Nos. 24167-24170, 24195-24196,[1] questions the denial by the Sandiganbayan of his plea bargaining proposal. This compelled petitioner to file the present case for certiorari and prohibition with prayer for the issuance of a temporary restraining The antecedents facts are laid down by Sandiganbayan in its order and/ or writ of preliminary injunction under Rule 65 of the Resolution dated March 25, 2004, as follows: Rules of Court. Said accused,[2] together with accused Benedicto E. Kuizon, were Petitioner argues that the Sandiganbayan committed grave abuse of charged before this Court for three counts of malversation of public discretion in denying his plea bargaining offer on the following funds involving the sums of P3,293.00, P1,869.00, and P13,528.00, grounds: first, petitioner is not an accountable officer and he merely respectively, which they purportedly tried to conceal by falsifying affixed his signature on the payrolls on a routinary basis, negating the time book and payrolls for given period making it appear that any criminal intent; and that the amount involved is only some laborers worked on the construction of the new municipal hall P18,860.00, which he already restituted.[6] building of Bato, Leyte and collected their respective salaries thereon when, in truth and in fact, they did not. Thus, in addition to The petition is meritorious. the charge for malversation, the accused were also indicted before this Court for three counts of falsification of public document by a Plea bargaining in criminal cases is a process whereby the accused public officer or employee. and the prosecution work out a mutually satisfactory disposition of the case subject to court approval. It usually involves the In the falsification cases, the accused offered to withdraw their plea defendant's pleading guilty to a lesser offense or to only one or of not guilty and substitute the same with a plea of guilty, provided, some of the counts of a multi-count indictment in return for a lighter the mitigating circumstances of confession or plea of guilt and sentence than that for the graver charge.[7] voluntary surrender will be appreciated in their favor. In the alternative, if such proposal is not acceptable, said accused Plea bargaining is authorized under Section 2, Rule 116 of the proposed instead to substitute their plea of not guilty to the crime of Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, to wit: falsification of public document by a public officer or employee with a plea of guilty, but to the lesser crime of falsification of a public SEC. 2. Plea of guilty to a lesser offense. At arraignment, the document by a private individual. On the other hand, in the accused, with the consent of the offended party and the prosecutor, malversation cases, the accused offered to substitute their plea of may be allowed by the trial court to plead guilty to a lesser offense not guilty thereto with a plea of guilty, but to the lesser crime of which is necessarily included in the offense charged. After failure of an accountable officer to render accounts. arraignment but before trial, the accused may still be allowed to plead guilty to said lesser offense after withdrawing his plea of not Insofar as the falsification cases are concerned, the prosecution guilty. No amendment of the complaint or information is necessary. found as acceptable the proposal of the accused to plead guilty to (sec. 4, cir. 38-98) the lesser crime of falsification of public document by a private individual. The prosecution explained: Ordinarily, plea bargaining is made during the pre-trial stage of the proceedings. Sections 1 and 2, Rule 118 of the Rules of Court, With respect to the falsification cases earlier mentioned, it appears require plea bargaining to be considered by the trial court at the that the act of the accused in pleading guilty for a lesser offense of pre-trial conference,[8] viz: falsification by a private individual defined and penalized under Article 172 of the Revised Penal code will strengthen our cases SEC. 1. Pre-trial; mandatory in criminal cases. In all criminal cases against the principal accused, Municipal Mayor Benedicto Kuizon, cognizable by the Sandiganbayan, Regional Trial Court, Metropolitan who appears to be the master mind of these criminal acts. Trial Court, Municipal Trial Court in Cities, Municipal Trial Court and Municipal Circuit Trial Court, the court shall, after arraignment and February 28, 1980, 96 SCRA 373, 377), then Justice Antonio Barredo within thirty (30) days from the date the court acquires jurisdiction explained clearly and tersely the rationale or the law: 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 x x x (A)fter the prosecution had already rested, the only basis on conference to consider the following: 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 (a) plea bargaining; to the lesser crime of homicide could be nothing more nothing less than the evidence already in the record. The reason for this being (b) stipulation of facts; that Section 4 of Rule 118 (now Section 2, Rule 116) under which a plea for a lesser offense is allowed was not and could not have been (c) marking for identification of evidence of the parties; intended as a procedure for compromise, much less bargaining.(Emphasis supplied) (d) waiver of objections to admissibility of evidence; However, Villarama involved plea bargaining after the prosecution (e) modification of the order of trial if the accused admits the charge had already rested its case. but interposes a lawful defense; and As regards plea bargaining during the pre-trial stage, as in the (f) such matters as will promote a fair and expeditious trial of the present case, the trial court's exercise of its discretion should neither criminal and civil aspects of the case. be arbitrary nor should it amount to a capricious and whimsical SEC. 2. Pre-trial agreement. All agreements or admissions made or exercise of discretion. Grave abuse of discretion implies such entered during the pre-trial conference shall be reduced in writing capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment as is equivalent to and signed by the accused and counsel, otherwise, they cannot be lack of jurisdiction or, in other words, where the power is exercised used against the accused. The agreements covering the matters in an arbitrary manner by reason of passion, prejudice, or personal referred to in section 1 of this Rule shall be approved by the court. hostility; and it must be so patent or gross as to amount to an (Emphasis supplied) evasion of a positive duty or to a virtual refusal to perform the duty enjoined by law, or to act at all in contemplation of law. But it may also be made during the trial proper and even after the prosecution has finished presenting its evidence and rested its case. In the present case, the Sandiganbayan rejected petitioner's plea Thus, the Court has held that it is immaterial that plea bargaining offer on the ground that petitioner and the prosecution failed to was not made during the pre-trial stage or that it was made only demonstrate that the proposal would redound to the benefit of the after the prosecution already presented several witnesses. public. The Sandiganbayan believes that approving the proposal would only serve to trivialize the seriousness of the charges against Section 2, Rule 116 of the Rules of Court presents the basic them and send the wrong signal to potential grafters in public office requisites upon which plea bargaining may be made, i.e., that it that the penalties they are likely to face would be lighter than what should be with the consent of the offended party and the their criminal acts would have merited or that the economic benefits prosecutor, and that the plea of guilt should be to a lesser offense they are likely to derive from their criminal activities far outweigh which is necessarily included in the offense charged. The rules the risks they face in committing them; thus, setting to naught the however use word may in the second sentence of Section 2, deterrent value of the laws intended to curb graft and corruption in denoting an exercise of discretion upon the trial court on whether to government. allow the accused to make such plea. Trial courts are exhorted to keep in mind that a plea of guilty for a lighter offense than that Apparently, the Sandiganbayan has proffered valid reasons in actually charged is not supposed to be allowed as a matter of rejecting petitioner's plea offer. However, subsequent events and bargaining or compromise for the convenience of the accused. higher interests of justice and fair play dictate that petitioner's plea offer should be accepted. The present case calls for the judicious In People of the Philippines v. Villarama, the Court ruled that the exercise of this Court's equity jurisdiction - acceptance of an offer to plead guilty to a lesser offense is not demandable by the accused as a matter of right but is a matter that Equity as the complement of legal jurisdiction is addressed entirely to the sound discretion of the trial court,[14] seeks to reach and do complete justice where courts of viz: law, through the inflexibility of their rules and want of power to adapt their judgments to the special x x x In such situation, jurisprudence has provided the trial court and circumstances of cases, are incompetent so to do. Equity the Office of the Prosecutor with a yardstick within which their regards the spirit of and not the letter, the intent and not discretion may be properly exercised. Thus, in People v. Kayanan (L- the form, the substance rather than the circumstance, as it 39355, May 31, 1978, 83 SCRA 437, 450), We held that the rules is variously expressed by different courts. allow such a plea only when the prosecution does not have sufficient evidence to establish the guilt of the crime charged. In his and of its power of control and supervision over the proceedings of concurring opinion in People v. Parohinog (G.R. No. L-47462, lower courts, in order to afford equal justice to petitioner. In People of the Philippines v. Estrada,[20] the Sandiganbayan, in its On the other hand, Falsification by Private Individuals penalized Resolution dated March 14, 2007, approved the Plea Bargaining under Article 172, paragraph 1 of the Revised Penal Code has the Agreement entered into by the prosecution and one of the accused, following elements: (a) the offender is a private individual or a public Charlie Atong Ang. The agreement provided that the accused officer or employee who did not take advantage of his official undertakes to assist in the prosecution of the case and promises to position; (b) the offender committed any of the acts of falsification return the amount of P25,000,000.00. In approving the Plea enumerated under Article 171 of the Revised Penal Code; and (c) the Bargaining Agreement, the Sandiganbayan took into consideration falsification was committed in a public or official or commercial the timeliness of the plea bargaining and whether the agreement document. complied with the requirements of Section 2, Rule 116 of the Rules of Court. The Sandigabayan noted that the accused had already As regards the crime of Malversation of Public Funds defined and withdrawn his earlier plea of not guilty; and that the prosecution penalized under Article 217 of the Revised Penal Code, with which consented to the plea of guilt to a lesser offense; and the lesser petitioner was also charged, the elements are as follows: (a) the offense, which is Corruption of Public Officials in relation to Indirect offender is a public officer; (b) he has custody or control of funds or Bribery, is necessarily included in the offense charged, which is property by reason of the duties of his office; (c) the funds or Plunder. property involved are public funds or property for which he is accountable; and (d) he has appropriated, taken or misappropriated, The Court sees no reason why the standards applied by the or has consented to, or through abandonment or negligence Sandiganbayan to Estrada should not be applied to the present case. permitted, the taking by another person of such funds or property. Records show that there was a favorable recommendation by the Article 217 also provides that the failure of the public officer to have Office of the Special Prosecutor to approve petitioner's motion to duly forthcoming such public funds or property, upon demand by a plea bargain. Thus, in its Memorandum dated August 16, 2002, the duly authorized officer, shall be prima facie evidence that he has put Office of the Special Prosecutor rationalized: such missing funds or property to personal use. In this regard, it has been ruled that once such presumption is rebutted, then it is In the cases at bar, there is no dispute that JOSELITO RANIERO J. completely destroyed; in fact, the presumption is never deemed to DAAN has already restituted the total amount of P18,860.00 as per have existed at all. official receipt issued by the provincial government of Leyte dated February 26, 2002. In short, the damage caused to the government Meanwhile, under Article 218 of the Revised Penal Code, Failure to has already been restituted by the accused. Render Account by an Accountable Officer, the lesser offense which petitioner seeks to plead guilty of, the following elements must There is also no dispute that accused DAAN voluntarily surrendered concur: (a) the offender is a public officer; (b) the offender must be in the instant cases. Moreover, the accused is also willing to plead an accountable officer for public funds or property; (c) the offender guilty to a lesser offense which to our mind, merits consideration. is required by law or regulation to render accounts to the COA or to a provincial auditor; and (d) the offender fails to render an account With respect to the falsification cases earlier mentioned, it appears for a period of two months after such accounts should be rendered. that the act of the accused in pleading guilty for a lesser offense of falsification by private individual defined and penalized under Article Section 5, Rule 120 of the Rules of Court states when an offense 172 of the Revised Penal Code will strengthen our cases against the includes or is included in the other, to wit: principal accused, the Municipal Mayor Benedicto Kuizon, who appears to be the master mind of these criminal acts. After all, the SEC. 5. When an offense includes or is included in another. An movants herein JOSELITO RANIERO J. DAAN was merely designated offense charged necessarily includes the offense proved when some as draftsman detailed as foreman/timekeeper of the Municipality of of the essential elements or ingredients of the former, as alleged in Bato, Leyte. the complaint or information, constitute the latter. And an offense charged is necessarily included in the offense proved, when the Moreover, the lesser offenses of Falsification by Private Individuals essential ingredients of the former constitute or form part of those and Failure to Render Account by an Accountable Officer are constituting the latter. necessarily included in the crimes of Falsification of Public Documents and Malversation of Public Funds, respectively, with An offense may be said to necessarily include another when some of which petitioner was originally charged. the essential elements or ingredients of the former as alleged in the complaint or information constitute the latter. And vice versa, an Under Article 171, paragraph 4 of the Revised Penal Code, for the offense may be said to be necessarily included in another when the crime of Falsification of Public Documents through an untruthful essential ingredients of the former constitute or form part of those narration of facts to be established, the following elements must constituting the latter. concur: (a) the offender makes in a document untruthful statements in a narration of facts; (b) the offender has a legal obligation to In this case, the allegations in the Informations filed against disclose the truth of the facts narrated; (c) the facts narrated by the petitioner are sufficient to hold petitioner liable for the lesser offender are absolutely false; and (d) the perversion of truth in the offenses. Thus, in the charge for Falsification of Public Documents, narration of facts was made with the wrongful intent of injuring a petitioner may plead guilty to the lesser offense of Falsification by third person. Private Individuals inasmuch as it does not appear that petitioner took advantage of his official position in allegedly falsifying the timebook and payroll of the Municipality of Bato, Leyte. In the same vein, with regard to the crime of Malversation of Public Funds, while the Informations contain allegations which make out a case for Malversation against petitioner, nevertheless, absent the element of conversion, theoretically, petitioner may still be held liable for Failure to Render Account by an Accountable Officer if it is shown that the failure to render account was in violation of a law or regulation that requires him to render such an accounting within the prescribed period.
Given, therefore, that some of the essential elements of offenses
charged in this case likewise constitute the lesser offenses, then petitioner may plead guilty to such lesser offenses.
Finally, as propounded by petitioner, indeed, he is not an
accountable officer in that the nature of his duty as foreman/timekeeper does not permit or require possession or custody of local government funds, not to mention that petitioner has already restituted the amount of P18,860.00 involved in this case. Unlike Estrada which involves a crime punishable by reclusion perpetua to death, and a whopping P25,000,000.00 taken from the public coffers, this case tremendously pales in comparison.
Under the peculiar circumstances of the present case, where gross
inequity will result in a discriminatory dispensation of justice, the Court will not hesitate to intervene in order to equalize the imbalance.
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The Resolutions dated March
25, 2004 and May 31, 2004 are SET ASIDE. The Sandiganbayan is hereby ORDERED to grant petitioner's Motion to Plea Bargain. Let records of this case be REMANDED to the Sandiganbayan for further proceedings in accordance with this Decision.