Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 4


First Judicial Region

Branch 14, Laoag City



Crim. Case No. 14674-14

(For Qualified Theft)

The Accused WINNIE B. MOLINA, by and through counsel on record, most
respectfully submits the following Plea Bargaining Proposal for the Honorable Courts
consideration and approval, and state:

1. That Accused has been charged for QUALIFIED THEFT punishable by reclusion

2. That Accused comes before the Honorable Court with this Plea Bargaining
Agreement after the Prosecution is about to rest its case. Notwithstanding Rule
116, Sec 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

3. Thus, in Daan vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R. Nos. 163972-77, March 28, , 2008, the
Supreme Court ruled for plea bargaining agreement, and in support thereof

cited, among others, People vs. Villarama, G.R. No. 99287, June 23, 210 SCRA
246; People vs. Kayanan 172 Phil. 728,729; People vs Parohinog G.R. No. L47462, February 28, 1980, 96 SCRA 373, 377, in this 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 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 the Prosecutor 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 evidence 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

x x x (A)fter the prosecution had already rested, the only basis 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 a lesser offense is allowed was not and could not have
been intended as a procedure for compromise, much less
bargaining. (Emphasis supplied).

4. That Accused Winnie B. Molina, hereby withdraws her plea of not guilty and
offers to enter a plea to the lesser offense of SIMPLE THEFT under Art. 308 of
the Revised Penal Code, which is necessarily included in Qualified Theft, the
offense charged under Criminal Case No. 14674-14 with admission of the facts
constituting the lesser offense, but not the offense charged;
5. That the penalty for such offense is prision mayor in its minimum and medium
periods to be imposed in the maximum period, the value of stolen property
having exceeded P22,000.00, and one (1) year for each additional P10,000.00;


That Accused also prays that the circumstance of plea of guilt and extreme
poverty and necessity be appreciated in her favor in the imposition of the

7. Thus, in People vs. Macbul, G.R. No. L-48976, October 11, 1943, the trial court
considered extreme poverty and necessity as a mitigating circumstance falling
within Article 13 par. 10 of the Revised Penal Code, which authorizes the court
to consider in favor of an accused "any other circumstance of a similar nature
and analogous to those above mentioned.

8. Consequently, Accused by way of restitution/penalty, is willing to return the

stolen property if this plea bargaining proposal is admitted by the Prosecution
and approved by the Honorable Court.

Respectfully and humbly submitted.

September 5, 2016, Laoag City, Philippines.


Counsel for Accused

At my instance and with my conformity: