RELATED LITERATURE

According to NEW HORIZON IN CRIMINAL JURISPRUDENCE K.P. Pradeep, Advocate,

High Court of Kerala
Plea bargaining helps the Courts and State to manage the case loads. It reduces
the work load of the prosecutors enabling them to prepare for gravest case by leaving
the effortless and petty offences to settle through plea bargaining. It is also a factor in
reforming the offender by accepting the responsibility for their actions and by submitting
them voluntarily before the law, without having an expensive and time consuming trial.
In cases wherein the prosecution is weak, if trial is concluded, for want of proper
witnesses or evidences and the ultimate result may be an acquittal, the prosecution will
have a chance to find the accused as guilty, by cooperating with the accused for a plea
bargaining.
From the angle of victim also, plea bargaining is a better substitute for his
ultimate relief, as he can avoid a lengthy court process to see the accused, be
convicted. The system gives a greater relief to a large number of under trials lodged in
various jails of the country and helps reduce the long pendency in the courts.

There are some other supporting factors of plea bargaining which fall into three
main categories. First, some jurists maintain that it is appropriate as a matter of
sentencing policy to reward defendants who acknowledge their guilt. They advance
several arguments in support of this position, notably, that a bargained guilty plea may
manifest an acceptance of responsibility or a willingness to enter the correctional
system in a frame of mind that may afford hope for rehabilitation over a shorter period of
time than otherwise would be necessary.

Second view treats plea bargaining, not primarily as a sentencing device, but as
a form of dispute resolution. Some plea bargaining advocates maintain that it is
desirable to afford the accused and the state the option of compromising factual and
legal disputes. They observe that if a plea agreement did not improve the positions of
both the accused and the state, one party or the other would insist upon a trial.

Finally, some observers supports plea bargaining on grounds of economy or

necessity. Viewing plea negotiation less as a sentencing device or a form of dispute
resolution than as an administrative practice, they argue that society cannot afford to
provide trials to all the accused who would demand them if guilty pleas were
unrewarded. At least, there are more appropriate uses for the additional resources that
an effective plea bargaining could save

--------------------------------
Section 2, Rule 116 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure lays down the basis
for plea bargaining, a process whereby the accused and the prosecution enter into a
reciprocally satisfactory disposition of the case subject to Court approval. The Rule
presents the basic requisites upon which plea bargaining may be made, i.e., that it
should be with the consent of the offended party and the prosecutor, and that the plea
of guilt should be to a lesser offense which is necessarily included in the offense
charged.

SENATE BILL NO. 1677 “AN ACT PROVIDING FOR RULES ON PLEA BARGAINING
AGREEMENT IN CRIMINAL CASES, PROVIDING PENALTIES IN VIOLATION
THEREFOR, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES” the explanatory note as introduced by
SENATOR LEILA M. DE LIMA provides that plea bargaining is imbued with public
interest, it is ideally intended to primarily serve the best interest of justice, of the State
and of its people, without unduly transgressing on the right of the accused to due
process. While the intended benefits of plea bargaining to all the stakeholders is not
contested, our very own history, however, proves witness to the unfortunate misuse and
abuse of the process, often to the great disadvantage of the Filipino people.

Recently, reports emerged that a principal accused in one of the biggest plunders of our
nation’s coffers is mulling a plea bargain deal with the government.4 Coupled with the
present Administration’s softening stance on this principal accused, 5 it will be a travesty
of justice if a sweetheart deal is eventually reached which may lead to the weakening of
the cases pending before the courts.

Thus, there is an urgent need for the development of a formal policy to establish
concrete guideposts in the implementation of plea bargaining. The setting of guidelines,
including the imposition of sanction for violation thereof, ensures that the process does
not become a mere vehicle for diluting the gravity of the offense charged against the
accused, for destroying the deterrent value of the law intended to proscribe the offense
committed, and/or for creating opportunities for graft and corrupt practices.

In the landmark case of SALVADOR ESTIPONA, JR. vs HON. FRANK E. LOBRIGO,

the Supreme court made mention that plea bargaining is to be encouraged because the
chief virtues of the system - speed, economy, and finality - can benefit the accused, the
offended party, the prosecution, and the court.

Considering the presence of mutuality of advantage the rules on plea bargaining neither
create a right nor take away a vested right. Instead, it operates as a means to
implement an existing right by regulating the judicial process for enforcing rights and
duties recognized by substantive law and for justly administering remedy and redress
for a disregard or infraction of them.

The decision to plead guilty is often heavily influenced by the defendant's appraisal of
the prosecution's case against him and by the apparent likelihood of securing leniency
should a guilty plea be offered and accepted. In any case, whether it be to the offense
charged or to a lesser crime, a guilty plea is a "serious and sobering occasion"
inasmuch as it constitutes a waiver of the fundamental rights to be presumed innocent
until the contrary is proved, to be heard by himself and counsel, to meet the witnesses
face to face, to bail (except those charged with offenses punishable by reclusion
perpetua when evidence of guilt is strong), to be convicted by proof beyond reasonable
doubt, and not to be compelled to be a witness against himself.

Yet a defendant has no constitutional right to plea bargain. No basic rights are infringed
by trying him rather than accepting a plea of guilty; the prosecutor need not do so if he
prefers to go to trial. Under the present Rules the acceptance of an offer to plead guilty
is not a demandable right but depends on the consent of the offended party and the
prosecutor, which is a condition precedent to a valid plea of guilty to a lesser offense
that is necessarily included in the offense charged. The reason for this is that the
prosecutor has full control of the prosecution of criminal actions; his duty is to always
prosecute the proper offense, not any lesser or graver one, based on what the evidence
on hand can sustain.