REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT

11TH Judicial Region
Branch 30
Tagum City, Davao del Norte

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, CRIM CASE NOs. 21457

Plaintiff, AND 21458

-versus- - for-

BENJO GUMAPAC SAISA VIOL. OF SECS. 12 &11,

a.k.a. “YAN-YAN”, ART. II, R.A. 9165, etc.
Accused.

X-------------------------------------/
PEOPLE OF THE CRIM CASE NOs. 21459
PHILIPPINES,
Plaintiff,
- for-
-versus-

BENJO GUMAPAC SAISA ILLEGAL POSSESSION OF

a.k.a. “YAN-YAN”, FIREARM AND AMMUNITIONS
Accused.

PLEA-BARGAINING PROPOSAL

The Accused WINNIE B. MOLINA, by and through counsel on record, most

respectfully submits the following Plea Bargaining Proposal for the Honorable
Court’s consideration and approval, and state:

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

reclusion perpetua;

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 case.

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. 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 the law:

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;

6. 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 penalty;

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.

ROZANNA BIANCA T.
PASTOR
Counsel for Accused

At my instance and with my conformity:

WINNIE B. MOLINA
Accused