REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

NATIONAL CAPITAL JUDICIAL REGION

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
Branch 123
City of Muntinlupa

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, CR. CASE NO. 18-1234

Plaintiff,

- versus- FOR: Violation of Sec. 11 of RA 9165

ANTON GABITO y GABON,

Accused,
x-------------------------------------x

PLEA-BARGAINING PROPOSAL

COMES NOW the accused, ANTON GABITO y GABON, through the undersigned counsel, and
unto this Honorable Court, respectfully moves and states that:

1.) The Accused has been charged for Possession of Dangerous Drugs under Section 11 of RA
9165 punishable by imprisonment of twenty (20) years and one (1) day to life imprisonment and
a fine ranging from Four hundred thousand pesos (P400,000.00) to Five hundred thousand pesos
(P500,000.00), if the quantities of dangerous drugs are five (5) grams or more but less than ten
(10) of methamphetamine hydrochloride or "shabu”;

2.In SALVADOR ESTIPONA, JR. v. HON. FRANK E. LOBRIGO (G.R. No. 226679, August 15,
2017), Sec 23 of RA 9165: the prohibition to avail the provision of plea bargaining of the accused
charged, was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. Plea bargaining in drug cases is
now allowed;

3.) The Accused now 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 case;

4.)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 SCRA246; 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 –

“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 thelaw:
 x x x After the prosecution had already rested, the only basis on which the fiscal and the
court could rightfully act in allowing theappellant 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)

5.) Accused, Anton Gabito y Gabon, hereby withdraws his plea of not guilty and offers to
enter a plea to the lesser offense of USE OF DANGEROUS DRUGS under Section 15 of RA 9165,
which is necessarily included in the offense charged, with the admission of the facts constituting
the lesser offense but not the offense charged;

6.) The penalty for the USE OF DANGEROUS DRUGS under Sec 15 of RA 9165:

“ A person apprehended or arrested, who is found to be positive for use of any dangerous
drug, after a confirmatory test, shall be imposed a penalty of a minimum of six (6) months
rehabilitation in a government center for the first offense, subject to the provisions of Article VIII
of this Act. If apprehended using any dangerous drug for the second time, he/she shall suffer the
penalty of imprisonment ranging from six (6) years and one (1) day to twelve (12) years and a fine
ranging from Fifty thousand pesos (P50,000.00) to Two hundred thousand pesos (P200,000.00):
Provided, That this Section shall not be applicable where the person tested is also found to have
in his/her possession such quantity of any dangerous drug provided for under Section 11 of this
Act, in which case the provisions stated therein shall apply.”

6.) The Accused also prays that the minimal quantity of dangerous drugs attributed to him
and the circumstance of being a first-time offender for use of dangerous drugs be considered in
his plea of guilt and in the appreciation of the penalties to be imposed upon him.

Respectfully and humbly submitted.

City of Muntinlupa. April 13, 2018.

JESSIE A. CELESPARA
Counsel for Accused
123-A Super Village, Poblacion, Muntinlupa CIty
PTR No. 7151978/01-05-15/
Roll of Attorneys No. 86281
IBP No. 315537/8-30-14/Muntinlupa
MCLE Compliance No. IV-00000830/07-15-14
Email: jessiecelespara@gmail.com / Cell. No. (0906) 888-
8888

At my instance and with my conformity:

ANTON GABITO GABON

Accused