REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

First Judicial Region

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
Branch 14, LAOAG CITY

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

Plaintiff, Crim. Case No. 14674-14
(For Murder)
-versus-

JAMES PEDRO, and

RICHARD PEDRO,
Accused

x-----------------------------------------------------------------x

COMMENT ON PLEA BARGAINING PROPOSAL

Comes now the plaintiff, represented by the Office of

the Provincial Prosecutor of Laoag City thru Assistant
Provincial Prosecutor CARL ANGELLO A. MENDOZA,
most respectfully submits the following after the accused
JAMES PEDRO AND RICHARD PEDRO, thru their counsel
of record, Atty. RUHL JACOBE L. RESURRECCION of the
PUBLIC ATTORNEY’S OFFICE of Laoag City, filed a for a
Plea Bargaining Proposal for the Honorable Court’s
consideration and approval, and state that:

1. That both accused has been charged for MURDER

punishable by reclusion perpetua;

2. That both accused came before this Honorable Court with

this Plea Bargaining Agreement after the Prosecution is about
to rest its case. Notwithstanding Rule 116, Sec. 2 of the
Revised Rules of Court which allows the plea to a lesser
offense at the arraignment, the Supreme Court, in many of
its decided cases, has nonetheless allowed plea bargaining
during trial and even after the Prosecution has finished
presenting its evidence and rested its case.

1
3. They cited the case of People v. Villarama1, wherein it
defined the process of Plea Bargaining in criminal cases and
also citing the requirements of it, to wit:

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 (see Black Law
Dictionary, 5th Ed., 1979, p. 1037). 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 (ibid).
Ordinarily, plea-bargaining is made during the pre-trial stage
of the criminal proceedings. However, the law still permits the
accused sufficient opportunity to change his plea thereafter.
Thus, Rule 116 of the Rules of Court, Section 2 thereof,
provides:

Sec. 2. Plea of guilty to a lesser offense. — The

accused, with the consent of the offended party and
the fiscal, may be allowed by the trial court to plead
guilty to a lesser offense, regardless of whether or
not it is necessarily included in the crime charged, or
is cognizable by a court of lesser jurisdiction than the
trial court. No amendment of the complaint or
information is necessary.

A conviction under this plea, shall be equivalent to a

conviction of the offense charged for purposes of
double jeopardy.

However, the acceptance of an offer to plead guilty to a lesser

offense under the aforequoted rule 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 (Manuel v.
Velasco, et al., G.R. No. 94732, February 26, 1991, En
Banc Resolution).

They then also cited People v. Kayanan2 wherein it was stated

there that, for the accused to change his plea is when the
prosecution must not have sufficient evidence to establish the
guilt of the accused, to wit:

A plea of guilty for a lighter offense than that actually charged

is not supposed to be allowed as a matter of bargaining or
compromise for the convenience of the accused. The rules

1
G.R. No. 90287, June 23, 1992
2
G.R. No. L-30355 May 31, 1978
2
 allow such a plea only when the prosecution does not have
sufficient evidence to establish guilt of the crime charged.
Indeed, when such an offer is made, the court is duty bound
to inquire carefully into the circumstances on which it is
premised.
Lastly, in the concurring opinion of Justice Barredo in the case
of People v. Parohinog3, he stated, therein, the rationale
behind the law in regard with the changing of plea:

As to such changes of the plea made by appellant, my

considered view is that it has become secondary. In this
connection, I hold that after 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 the record. The reason for this being that Section 4
of Rule 118 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. It is the duty of the fiscal
to always prosecute the proper offense, not any lesser or
graver one, when the evidence in his hands can only sustain
the former.

4. That both accused JAMES PEDRO AND RICHARD

PEDRO, hereby withdraw their pleas to that of plea of guilty,
respectively, for the lesser offense of homicide under Art. 249
of the Revised Penal Code, which is necessarily included in the
crime of Murder, 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 the crime of homicide is reclusion

temporal4 which shall be from twelve (12) years and one (1)
day to twenty (20) years5;

6. Moreover, accused RICHARD PEDRO would want to pray

that the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender 6be
appreciated in his favor;

3
G.R. No. L-47462 February 28, 1980
4
Art. 249 of the Revised Penal Code
5
Art. 27 of the Revised Penal Code
6
Art. 13 par. 7 of the Revised Penal Code
3
7. Hence, they cited Napone v. People7, citing People v.
Malabago8, wherein the prosecution did not dispute the
testimony of the accused of his voluntary surrender to the
police, to wit:

In People v. Malabago, we held that where the

accused testified that he voluntarily surrendered to
the police and the prosecution did not dispute such
claim, the mitigating circumstance should be
appreciated in his favor. A perusal of the record
revealed that the prosecution did not dispute Junior's
claim that he surrendered to the police authorities in
Baungon, Bukidnon, on 23 June 1992. Hence, the
mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender must
be credited in his favor.

8. Lastly, accused JAMES PEDRO would also want to pray

that the circumstance of passion or obfuscation under Art. 13
par. 5 of the Revised Penal ode be appreciated in his favor;

9. Hence, in Napone v. People9, the Supreme Court

appreciated the circumstances surrounding the crime by
stating that, instead of passion or obfuscation, there was
vindication of a grave offense, in which they stated the
requisites, to wit:

xxx (1) that there be a grave offense done to the one

committing the felony, his spouse, ascendants,
descendants, legitimate, natural or adopted brothers
or sisters, or relatives by affinity within the same
degrees; and (2) that the felony is committed in
vindication of such grave offense. xxx

10. The Office of the Provincial Prosecutor, the office

mandated by law to prosecute the instant case, finds that:

a) The offer to plea to a lesser offense is not in

consonance with law.

7
GR No. 193085, Nov. 29, 2017
8
G.R. No. 115686 December 2, 1996
9
Supra
4
 b) In view of the foregoing, the basic requisites of
plea bargaining are: (a) consent of the offended party;
(b) consent of the prosecutor; (c) plea of guilty to a lesser
offense which is necessarily included in the offense
charged; and (d) approval of the court;10 |||

c) Moreover, as stated above by the defense in People v.

Kayanan11, it was stated there that, to wit:

A plea of guilty for a lighter offense than that actually charged

is not supposed to be allowed as a matter of bargaining or
compromise for the convenience of the accused. The rules
allow such a plea only when the prosecution does not have
sufficient evidence to establish guilt of the crime charged.
Indeed, when such an offer is made, the court is duty bound
to inquire carefully into the circumstances on which it is
premised.

The jurisprudence above implied that the evidence

of the prosecution must not be strong, in order for a valid
plea-bargaining proposal will be agreed upon. Otherwise,
the prosecution would not consent to such proposal.

d) In application of the foregoing, the prosecution

has strong and sufficient evidence to establish the crime
charged against the accused. Here, their crime of Murder,
under Art. 248 of the Revised Penal Code, was qualified
by the aggravating circumstance of treachery by taking
advantage of their superior strength, and cruelty12 as
stated in the Resolution13 submitted by the Office of the
Provincial Prosecutor to this Honorable Court. It was
stated there that accused RICHARD PEDRO used a
barawad to kill the deceased, and, together with JAMES
PEDRO, they took turns in hacking HERMIGINILDO
BUENO despite the latter lying defenseless on the
ground14. It was described, therein, by our witness
Juanita that the crime scene was as if a pig was
slaughtered.15

10
G.R. No. 247575. November 16, 2020
11
Supra
12
Art. 248 nos. 1 and 6 of the Revised Penal Code
13
Bueno v. Pedro et. Al, Resolution, Page 7, NPS Docket No. I-04-INV-96D-00087
14
Ibid
15
Bueno v. Pedro et. Al, Resolution, Page 8, NPS Docket No. I-04-INV-96D-00087
5
 e) Moreover, Qualifying Aggravating Circumstance
are those that change the nature of the crime and the
designation of the offense and resultantly increase the
penalty to a higher degree. It cannot be offset by any
mitigating circumstance and must be proved as
conclusively as the guilt of the offender because they are
elements of the offense.

f) The Office of the Provincial Prosecutor thereby

objects to the proposal of the defense;

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, the plaintiffs respectfully pray that

they object to the proposal of the accused change their
plea to a lesser offense and be given the corresponding
mitigating circumstance abovementioned.

November 22, 2021, Laoag City, Ilocos Norte Philippines

Respectfully recommended:

RUHL JACOBE L. RESURRECCION

Assistant Provincial Prosecutor

Approved by:

EDMUND ILDEFONSO M. TURQUEZA

Chief Prosecutor

Copy furnished:

CARL ANGELLO A. MENDOZA

Counsel of the Accused

6
 PROOF OF SERVICE

Republic of the Philippines)

Province of Ilocos Norte) S.S.
City of Laoag)
x----------x

AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE

I, Lilia D. Maano, of legal age, single, and a resident of Laoag

City, Ilocos Norte, Philippines, after having been duly sworn
in accordance with law, hereby depose and say:

That I am an employee at the Office of the Provincial

Prosecutor, with office address at Marcos Hall of Justice, V.
Llanes St., corner F. Castro Ave. Brgy. 9, Laoag City, Ilocos
Norte, Philippines;

That in my aforementioned capacity, I served a copy of the

COMMENT ON PLEA BARGAINING PROPOSAL in the case
entitled "People v. Pedro" docketed as Criminal Case for
Murder with Case no. 14674-14 by Depositing a copy in
the post office, in a sealed envelope, plainly addressed to the
party or his attorney at his office/ residence with postage fully
prepaid, as evidenced by Registry Receipt No. 0123456
hereto attached, and with instructions to the postmaster to
return the mail to the sender after ten (10) days, if
undelivered.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this

22nd day of November, 2021 at Laoag City, Philippines.

Lilia D. Maano
Affiant

JURAT

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me, this 22nd day of

November, 2021, in the City of Laoag, by Lilia D. Maano,

7
who exhibited to me her National ID number 8790654
issued at Laoag City, Philippines on June 25, 2021.

NOTARY PUBLIC
Atty. Quinn Jay L. Bellosillo
Notary Public for Laoag City
Commission Serial No. 18
Until Dec. 31, 2021
PTR No. 16989565:1-01-21
IBP No. 693190:1-01-21
Roll No. 43503:5-10-20: Laoag City

Doc. No. 16;

Page No. 358;
Book No. VI;
Series of 2021.