CRIMPRO: Rule 118, Sec.

1 & 2 [Plea
17 DAAN V. SANDIGANBAYAN bargaining during the pre-trial stage]
5 G.R. No. 163972-77 March 28, 2008 Austria-Martinez, J. Fejj
Petitioners: Respondents:
Joselito Raniero Daan The Hon. Sandiganbayan (Fourth Division)
Recit Ready Summary

Raniero Daan was charged with Malversation of Public Funds and Falsification of Public Document by a
Public Officer or Employee for allegedly making it appear that some laborers worked on the construction
of the new municipal hall building of Bato, Leyte and that the laborers collected their respective salaries
when they did not. In the malversation case, Daan offered to substitute his plea of “not guilty” with a plea
of “guilty” but to a lesser crime of Failure of an Accountable Officer to Render Accounts. In the falsification
case, on the other hand, Daan proposed to substitute his plea of “not guilty” with a plea of “guilty” to the
lesser crime of Falsification of a Public document by a Private Individual. The Sandiganbayan, however,
denied Daan’s Motion To Plea Bargain despite favorable recommendation by the prosecution, on the
main ground that no cogent reason was presented to justify its approval. Thus, Daan filed the present
case for certiorari and prohibition under Rule 65.

Issue here is whether Daan’s plea bargaining offer should be granted. [YES]

Ordinarily, plea bargaining is made during the pre-trial stage of the proceedings. Sections 1 and 2 of
Rule 118 of the ROC require plea bargaining to be considered by the trial court at the pre-trial
conference. But, it may also be made during the trial proper and even after the prosecution has finished
presenting its evidence and rested its case. However, the trial court has discretion on whether to allow the
accused to make such plea. Plea bargaining ma y be made provided that: (1) it should be with the
consent of the offended party and the prosecutor and (2) the plea of guilt should be to a lesser offense
which is necessarily included in the offense charged.

As regards plea bargaining during the pre-trial stage, as in the present case, the trial court’s exercise of
its discretion should neither be arbitrary nor should it amount to a capricious and whimsical exercise of
discretion. Although the Sandiganbayan has proffered valid reasons in rejecting Daan’s plea offer,
the subsequent events and higher interests of justice and fair play dictate that Daan’s plea offer
should be accepted. Using the standards applied in People v. Estrada, the Court ruled in favor of Daan.
First, there was a favorable recommendation by the Office of the Special Prosecutor to approve
petitioner’s motion to plea bargain. OCP reasoned that Daan has already restituted the amount involved
and the act of Daan of pleading guilty for a lesser offense of falsification by private individual will
strengthen the case against Mayor Kuizon, the alleged mastermind. Moreover, the lesser offenses are
necessarily included in the crimes with which petitioner was originally charged. Finally, petitioner 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. Thus, under the peculiar circumstances of the
present case, gross inequity will result should the Motion to Plea Bargain be denied.
Facts

1. Raniero Daan was charged with three counts of malversation of public funds, which Daan and
another accused purportedly tried to conceal by falsifying the time book and payrolls. For a given
period, they made it appear that some laborers worked on the construction of the new municipal hall
building of Bato, Leyte and that the laborers collected their respective salaries when, in fact, they did
not.
(a) In the malversation cases, accused offered to substitute their plea of “not guilty” with a plea of
“guilty” but to a lesser crime of failure of an accountable officer to render accounts
(b) The prosecution was amenable to the offer of the accused to plead “guilty” to the lesser crime
i. Daan has already reinstituted the total amount of P18,860. Thus, the damage caused
to the government has already been restituted.
2. Daan was also indicted for three counts of falsification of public document by a public officer or

1
 employee.
(a) In the falsification cases, the accused offered to withdraw their plea of “not guilty” and
substitute the same with a plea of “guilty,” provided the mitigating circumstances of
confession or plea of guilt and voluntary surrender will be appreciated in their favor
(b) If such proposal is not acceptable, accused proposed to substitute their plea of “not guilty”
with a plea of “guilty” to the lesser crime of falsification of a public document by a private
individual
(c) The prosecution found as acceptable the proposal of the accused to plead “guilty” to the
lesser crime
i. The prosecution explained that this would strengthen their case against the principal
accused, Mayor Kuizon, who appears to be the mastermind.
3. The Sandiganbayan denied petitioner’s Motion To Plea Bargain despite favorable recommendation
by the prosecution, on the main ground that no cogent reason was presented to justify its approval.
Procedural History
1. Petitioner Daan filed a Motion To Plea Bargain before the Sandiganbayan; Sandiganbayan
denied.
2. Petitioner Daan filed a Motion for Reconsideration; Sandiganbayan denied.
3. Petitioner filed the present case for certiorari and prohibition with prayer for the issuance of a
temporary restraining order and/or writ of preliminary injunction under Rule 65.
Point/s of Contention
Daan:
Petitioner argues that the Sandiganbayan committed grave abuse of discretion in denying his plea
bargaining offer on the following grounds:
(1) Petitioner is not an accountable officer and he merely affixed his signature on the payrolls on a
routinary basis, negating any criminal intent
(2) The amount involved is only P18,860, which he already restituted
Sandiganbayan:
The Sandiganbayan believes that approving the proposal would only serve to trivialize the seriousness of
the charges against them.
Issues Ruling
1. Whether Daan’s plea bargaining offer should be granted 1. YES

2
Rationale

1. Daan’s plea bargaining offer should be granted.

- Plea bargaining in criminal cases is a process whereby the accused and the prosecution work out
a mutually satisfactory disposition of the case subject to court approval. It usually involves the
defendant’s pleading guilty to a lesser offense or to only one or some of the counts of a multi-
count indictment in return for a lighter sentence than that for the graver charge.
- Plea bargaining is authorized under Section 2, Rule 116 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure.
- Ordinarily, plea bargaining is made during the pre-trial stage of the proceedings. Sections 1 and
2 of Rule 118 of the ROC, require plea bargaining to be considered by the trial court at the pre-
trial conference. But, it may also be made during the trial proper and even after the prosecution
has finished presenting its evidence and rested its case.
 Thus, it is immaterial that plea bargaining was not made during the pre-trial stage or that it
was made only after the prosecution already presented several witnesses.
- Under Section 2, Rule 116, plea bargaining may be made, provided that: (1) it should be with the
consent of the offended party and the prosecutor and (2) the plea of guilt should be to a lesser
offense which is necessarily included in the offense charged
 The rules use the word “may,” — denoting an exercise of discretion upon the trial court on
whether to allow the accused to make such plea.
- In People v. Villarama:
 Villarama involved plea bargaining after the prosecution had already rested its case.
 The 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 is addressed entirely to the sound
discretion of the trial court.
 Jurisprudence provides that the rules allow such a plea only when the prosecution does not
have sufficient evidence to establish the guilt of the crime charged.
 Only basis on which the fiscal and the court could rightfully act in allowing the accused to
change his former plea of not guilty to guilty to the lesser crime should be the evidence
already in the record.1
- As regards plea bargaining during the pre-trial stage, as in the present case, the trial court’s
exercise of its discretion should neither be arbitrary nor should it amount to a capricious and
whimsical exercise of discretion.
- Here, the Sandiganbayan rejected the Daan’s plea offer on the ground that Daan and the
prosecution failed to demonstrate that the proposal would redound to the benefit of the public.
- Although the Sandiganbayan has proffered valid reasons in rejecting Daan’s plea offer, the
subsequent events and higher interests of justice and fair play dictate that Daan’s plea
offer should be accepted.
- In People v. Estrada:
 Sandiganbayan approved the Plea Bargaining Agreement (PBA) entered into by the
prosecution and Charlie “Atong” Ang (one of the accused)
 The agreement provided that the accused will assist in the prosecution of the case and will
return the amount of P25 million
 In approving the PBA, the Sandiganbayan, taking into consideration the timeliness of the
plea bargaining and whether the agreement complied with Section 2 Rule 116, noted that
the accused has already withdrawn his earlier plea of “not guilty,” and the prosecution
consented to the plea of guilt to a lesser offense (From Plunder to Corruption of Public
Officials in relation to Indirect Bribery)
- The Court saw no reason why the standards applied by the Sandiganbayan in Estrada should
not be applied to the present case. First, there was a favorable recommendation by the Office of
the Special Prosecutor to approve petitioner’s motion to plea bargain. It reasoned that:

1 Take note that this was taken from the concurring opinion of Justice Barredo in People v. Parohinog.

3
 (1)Daan has already restituted the total amount of P18,860
(2)Daan voluntarily surrendered
(3)Daan is also willing to plead guilty to lesser offense
(4)With respect to the falsification cases, the act of accused of pleading guilty for a lesser
offense of falsification by private individual will strengthen the case against Mayor Kuizon,
the mastermind
(5)Daan was merely designated as a draftsman
- Moreover, the lesser offenses are necessarily included in the crimes with which petitioner
was originally charged. An offense may be said to necessarily include another when some of
the essential elements or ingredients of the former as alleged in the complaint or information
constitute the latter and vise versa.

ORIGINAL CHARGE LESSER OFFENSE

Falsification of Public documents through an
untruthful narration of facts:
(1) Offender makes in a document untruthful
statements in a narration of facts
(2) Offender has a legal obligation to disclose
the truth of the facts narrated
(3) Facts narrated are absolutely false
(4) The perversion of truth was made with the
wrongful intent of injuring a third person
Malversation of Public Funds:
(1) Offender is a public officer
Falsification by Private Individuals:
(1) Offender is a private individual or employee
who did not take advantage of his official
position
(2) Offender committed any of the acts of
falsification of his official position
(3) Falsification was committed in a public or
commercial document
Failure to Render Account by an Accountable
Officer:

(2) He has custody or control of funds or (1) Offender is a public officer

property by reason of the duties of his (2) Offender must be an accountable officer for
office public funds or property
(3) Funds or property involved are public funds (3) Offender is required by law or regulation to
or property for w/c he is accountable render accounts to the COA or to a
(4) He has appropriated, taken, or provincial auditor
misappropriated, or has consented to, or (4) Offender fails to render an account for a
through abandonment or negligence period of two months after such accounts
permitted, the taking by another person of should be rendered
such funds or property

 In the falsification case: It does not appear that Daan took advantage of his official position
in falsifying the time book and payroll.
 In the malversation case: While the informations contain allegations which make out a case
for Malversation against Daan, nevertheless, absent the element of conversion,
theoretically, petitioner may still be held liable for Failure to Render Account it is shown that
the failure to render account was in violation of a law/regulation that requires him to render
such an accounting.
- Finally, petitioner 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. Petitioner has already restituted the amount of P18,860 involved in the case.
 Unlike in Estrada, w/c involves a crime punishable by RP to death and P25 million taken
from the public.
- Under the peculiar circumstances of the present case, gross inequity will result in a
discriminatory dispensation of justice should the Motion to Plea Bargain be denied.
Disposition

Petition granted. Sandiganbayan is ordered to grant petitioner Daan’s Motion to Plea Bargain. Case

4
remanded to the Sandiganbayan for further proceeding.