Republic of the Philippines

First Judicial Region

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
BRANCH 26
San Fernando City, La Union

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, CRIM.CASE NOS. 12575 & 12576

Plaintiff,
for
- versus -
VIOLATION OF SECTIONS 5 &
KRISTIANJAN GARCIA y Corpuz, 11 ART. II OF R.A. 9165,
Accused. RESPECTIVELY
x----------------------------x

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

The Honorable Court issued its resolution dated September 3, 2018

denying the motion of the accused to plead guilty to a lesser offense in
Criminal Case No. 12575. In the same resolution, however, it approved the
prayer of the accused in so far as Criminal Case No. 12576 is concerned
because the prosecutor consented. Said resolution was received by the
undersigned Public Attorney last September 10, 2018.

In the motion filed, the accused ask the Honorable Court to plead
guilty to a lesser offense of Violation of Section 12, Article II of Republic
Act No. 9165 in Criminal Case No. 12575. The accused also asked the
Honorable Court to plead guilty to a lesser offense of Violation of Section
12, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 in Criminal Case No. 12576.The
prosecution interposed their vigorous objection on said motion specifically
in Criminal Case No. 12575 but they are amenable to the proposed plea
bargain in Criminal Case No. 12576. Their objection in Criminal Case No.
12575 is anchored on which lesser offense the accused should plead guilty
to. They proposed that it be Violation of Section 11, Article II of Republic
Act No. 9165 as they are mandated by DOJ Department Circular No. 027
dated June 26, 2018.

The Honorable Court postulating that the right to plea bargain is

neither absolute nor demandable on the part of the accused denied the
motion. It anchored the ruling on Section 2 Rule 116 of the Revised Rules of
Court, to wit:

Section 2. Plea of guilty to a lesser offense. — At arraignment, the

accused, with the consent of the offended party and the

Motion for Reconsideration

Crim.Case No. 12575 & 12576
Page 1 of 11
 prosecutor, may be allowed by the trial court to plead guilty to a
lesser offense which is necessarily included in the offense charged.
After arraignment but before trial, the accused may still be allowed to
plead guilty to said lesser offense after withdrawing his plea of not
guilty. No amendment of the complaint or information is necessary. 

The Court explained that in order for it to come in for its approval, the
prosecution and defense should come to an agreement first on how to
mutually satisfactory disposed of the case. The consent of the prosecutor is
mandatory and indispensable it said. It emphasized that said consent is a
condition precedent to a valid plea of guilt to a lesser offense, hence, the
denial.

The accused now comes in humility to ask the Honorable Court for
its mercy and compassion.

The undersigned cannot more than agree with the pronouncement of

the Honorable Court. Indeed, as per the rules, the consent of the prosecutor
in victimless crimes is a sine qua non for the accused to plead guilty to a
lesser offense which is necessarily included in the offense charged.

In a profusion of jurisprudence, however, our zealous and untiring

Supreme Court has time and again reminded every stakeholder in the
administration of justice that rules of procedure should be liberally
construed. It expounded that rules of procedure are mere tools designed to
expedite the decision or resolution of cases and other matters pending in
court. Rules of procedure are not to be applied in a very rigid, technical
sense; they are used only to help secure substantial justice. 1 A strict and
rigid application of rules, resulting in technicalities that tend to frustrate
rather than promote substantial justice, must be avoided.2 In fact, even
the Rules of Court, Section 6 of Rule 1 thereof admitted this. It states
that the Rules shall be  liberally construed in order to promote their
objective of ensuring the just, speedy and inexpensive disposition of
every action and proceeding.3

In De Guzman vs. Sandiganbayan4, the Supreme Court had the

opportunity to explain the rationale of the liberal construction of the rules.
It even enumerated host of cases where this prerogative has been invoked
to relax even procedural rules of the most mandatory character in terms of
compliance. In not a few instances, the Supreme Court ordered a new trial
in criminal cases on grounds not mentioned in the statute, retraction of
witness, negligence or incompetency of counsel, improvident plea of guilt,
disqualification of an attorney de officio to represent the accused in trial
1
Mediserv, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 161368, April 5, 2010.
2
Development Bank of the Philippines vs. Family Foods Manufacturing Co., Ltd., G.R. No. 180458, July 30, 2009.
3
Section 6, Rule 1 of the Rules of Court.
4
G.R. No. 103276.  April 11, 1996.

Motion for Reconsideration

Crim.Case No. 12575 & 12576
Page 2 of 11
court, and where a judgment was rendered on a stipulation of facts entered
into by both the prosecution and the defense.5

In this case6, petitioner Domingo De Guzman is just about to lose his

case. This is because his former lawyers pursued a carelessly contrived
procedural strategy of insisting on what has already become an imprudent
remedy. This strategy forbade petitioner from offering his evidence for
presentation before the Sandiganbayan. The Supreme Court brushed aside
the rules and gave way to petitioner’s plea for substantial justice. It said:

Under the circumstances, higher interests of justice and equity

demand that petitioner be not penalized for the costly importunings of
his previous lawyers based on the same principles why this Court had,
on many occasions where it granted new trial, excused parties from
the negligence or mistakes of counsel. To cling to the general rule in
this case is only to condone rather than rectify a serious injustice to
petitioners whose only fault was to repose his faith and entrust his
innocence to his previous lawyers.

xxx

And the grim reality petitioner will surely face, if we do not

compassionately bend backwards and flex technicalities in this
instance, is the disgrace and misery of incarceration for a crime which
he might not have committed after all. More so, considering that
petitioner’s record as public servant remained unscathed until his
prosecution. Indeed, while guilt shall not escape, innocence should
not suffer.7

To justify its ruling in this case 8, it cited as one example PNB, et

al. vs.  CA, et al.9, where the Supreme Court had the opportunity to extend
this liberality rule. It allowed an appeal filed beyond the reglementary 15-
day period. A clear showing that the rules may be relaxed when
circumstances warrants. Even the dissenting opinion of Justice Melo agreed
to this liberality rule. Portion of his dissenting opinion reads:

The simple merits of ones case, lost through neglect, to my mind

should not automatically call for the suspension of applicable rules,
laws, or jurisprudence.  At the very least, before this may be done
transcendental matters, surely, life, liberty, or the security of the
State, should be at risk,  but obviously, not simple matters which can
be reduced to pesos and centavos.
5
Id.
6
Id.
7
Id. citing Suarez vs. Platon, 69 Phil. 556 (quoting Justice Sutherland of the U.S. Supreme Court, 69 U.S. Law
Review, June 1935, No. 6, p. 309).
8
Id.
9
G.R. No. 108870, July 14, 1995.

Motion for Reconsideration

Crim.Case No. 12575 & 12576
Page 3 of 11
 In another case, US vs. Dungca10, cited by the Supreme Court in the
aforementioned case of De Guzman11, the Supreme Court used this case to
justify its ruling saying:

xxx, the rigor of the rule might in an exceptional case be relaxed, this
would be done only under very exceptional circumstances, and in
cases where a review of the whole record taken together with the
evidence improvidently omitted would clearly justify the conclusion
that the omission had resulted in the conviction of one innocent of the
crime  charged.

It also used the case of Ronquillo vs. Marasigan12. In this, the decision of the
trial court has long become final and executory; hence, it attained the status
of res judicata. On appeal, the Supreme Court ignored this rule and went on
to favor petitioner Ronquillo. Its justification reads:

To deny this appeal on the principles of res judicata and/or

estoppel by judgment would be sacrificing justice to
technicality. xxx In cases like the one under consideration, a liberal
interpretation of the rules becomes imperative and technicalities
should not be resorted to in derogation of the intent and
purpose of the rules — the proper and just determination of a
litigation. xxx The fact that the decision xxx has become final, does
not preclude a modification or an alteration thereof because even with
the finality of judgment, when its execution becomes impossible or
unjust, as in the instant case, it may be modified or altered to
harmonize the same with justice and the facts. (Emphasis supplied)

In all these cases, the Supreme Court is consistent in saying that the
Rules of Court was conceived and promulgated to set forth guidelines in
the dispensation of justice but not to bind and chain the hand that
dispenses it, for otherwise, courts will be mere slaves to or robots of
technical rules, shorn of judicial discretion.13 Moreover, the Supreme
Court also noted that when “transcendental matters” like life, liberty or
State security are involved, suspension of the rules is likely to be welcomed
more generously. A rigid application of the rules of procedure must bow to
the overriding goal of courts of justice to render justice where justice is
due.14

Considering the aforementioned rule, the next question to be asked is

“Is this applicable in this case?” Yes, we are of the belief that said rule should

10
27 Phil. 274.
11
G.R. No. 103276.  April 11, 1996.
12
5 SCRA 304.
13
G.R. No. 103276.  April 11, 1996.
14
Id.

Motion for Reconsideration

Crim.Case No. 12575 & 12576
Page 4 of 11
be applied in this case. If it can be done in the afore-cited cases by the
highest court of the land, why can it not be done in this case?

First and foremost, the life and liberty of the accused is at stake here
as we are talking about life imprisonment and even death as a penalty if it
will be restored. Secondly, the allowance of the motion would render
substantial justice to all who have a wager in this case. Thirdly and more
importantly, it will promote the just, speedy and inexpensive disposition of
this case consistent with the objectives of the rules. The elements are all
present to permit the relaxation of the rule. Accused earnestly and humbly
implore the Honorable Court’s mercy and compassion to grant his prayer
over the objection of the prosecutor.

Justice is the legal or philosophical theory by which fairness is

administered.15 It is the concept of moral rightness based on ethics,
rationality, law, natural law, fairness, religion and/or equity. Justice is the
result of the fair and proper administration of law.16 The law dictionary
defines it as a means to protect rights and punish wrongs using fairness.17

In the 17th century, philosophers in the social contract tradition

theorized that justice is derived from the mutual agreement of everyone
concerned. In the 19th century, utilitarian thinkers including John Stuart
Mill said that justice is that which has the best consequences. Egalitarians,
on the other hand, state that justice can only exist within the coordinates of
equality. John Rawls used a theory of social contract to show that justice,
and especially distributive justice, is a form of fairness.

At present, the concept has already evolved. The theory of retributive

justice has emerged. Retributive justice is concerned with the punishment for
wrongdoing.18 It needs to answer the following questions:
1. Why punish?
2. Who should be punished?
3. What punishment should they receive?

Retributive justice looks back to particular acts of wrongdoing, and attempt

to balance them with deserved punishment. Under this theory of justice
comes the concept of restorative justice sometimes called “reparative
justice”. It is an approach to justice that focuses on the needs of victims and
offenders, instead of satisfying abstract legal principles or punishing the
offender. Victims take an active role in the process, while offenders are
encouraged to take responsibility for their actions, “to repair the harm
they've done – by apologizing, returning stolen money, or community

15
"Definition of Justice". https://www.merriam-webster.com. Retrieved 09-11-2018.
16
“Justice Law and Legal Definition”. https://definitions.uslegal.com/j/justice/. Retrieved 09-11-2018.
17
“What is Justice?”. https://thelawdictionary.org/justice/. Retrieved 09-11-2018.
18
Laurence, Timothy (2014). "Overview". In Laurence, Timothy. Good News for the Public Square. LCF. p. xxii.

Motion for Reconsideration

Crim.Case No. 12575 & 12576
Page 5 of 11
service”. It is based on a theory of justice that considers crime and
wrongdoing to be an offense against an individual or community rather
than the state.19

On whether justice will be served in allowing the motion of the

accused, we stand in the affirmative.

Consistent with the concept of restorative justice, even the law -

Republic Act No. 9165, recognizes it. Section 2 of the Comprehensive
Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002 provides the rationale for the passage of the
said law as part of the policy of the state. These are the following:

1. To safeguard the integrity of its territory and the well-being of

its citizenry particularly the youth, from the harmful effects
of dangerous drugs on their physical and mental well-being,
and to defend the same against acts or omissions detrimental to
their development and preservation;
2. To pursue an intensive and unrelenting campaign against the
trafficking and use of dangerous drugs and other similar
substances through an integrated system of planning,
implementation and enforcement of anti-drug abuse policies,
programs, and projects; and
3. To provide effective mechanisms or measures to re-integrate
into society individuals who have fallen victims to drug
abuse or dangerous drug dependence through sustainable
programs of treatment and rehabilitation. (Emphasis supplied)

The government reported that between July 2016 and May 15, 2018,
1.3 million drug suspects surrendered to the authorities; 143,335 “drug
personalities” were arrested; 99,485 police operations were conducted; and
2,678.61 kilos of shabu were seized.20 The intensified campaign against
illegal drugs has been controversial and is up to the present. The report
explained that this is because of the large numbers of Filipinos killed
during police operations, the spread of vigilante-style killings, and
allegations of extrajudicial summary executions of drug suspects. Law
enforcement agencies have also been criticized for employing tactics that
violate the privacy and other rights of citizens. These tactics include
mandatory house-to-house surveys on drug use, compulsory drug tests,
and the compilation of “drug watch lists” that make residents the target of
arrests or killings.21 (Emphasis supplied)

19
Michael Braswell, and John Fuller, Corrections, Peacemaking and Restorative Justice: Transforming Individuals
and Institutions (Routledge, 2014).
20
“The search for human, effective, and evidence-based solutions to the drug problem”. https://drugarchive.ph.
Retrieved on 09-12-2018 citing Martin Sadongdong, “Over 4,200 slain, 143 K arrested in drug war —
#RealNumbersPH Year 2,” Manila Bulletin, May 29, 2018.
21
“The search for human, effective, and evidence-based solutions to the drug problem”. https://drugarchive.ph.
Retrieved on 09-11-2018.

Motion for Reconsideration

Crim.Case No. 12575 & 12576
Page 6 of 11
 With all these data, researches have been undertaken. Researchers
found out that those involved are mostly poor. The research noted – “Based
on their place of residence or their occupation, it is clear that most of the victims
were poor.”22 In the said study it was further revealed that these persons
allegedly involved or has some involvement in illegal drugs are tricycle,
pedicab, or jeepney drivers, barkers, construction workers, vendors,
farmers, or garbage collectors among others.23 The Honorable Court can
take judicial notice of this. A careful scrutiny of the dockets of the court
would reveal confirmation of the findings of the research conducted.
Almost all drug cases pending with this court are clients of the Public
Attorney’s Office. If so, then they belong to the indigent members of the
community. In the local dialect – “silang mga nasa laylayan ng lipunan.”

Since the government started its aggressiveness on its war against

illegal drugs, they have been continuously attacked by various sectors of
society. It was coined that this war is a war against the poor. 24 What has
this got to do with the justice we are putting forward in this argument? For
us, it has everything relative to our point on substantial justice.

How many times was this government confronted with the drug
menace involving the “big fish”? There was this 6.4 billion shabu case
involving Customs broker Mark Taguba. What happened with this case -
the government lost this case.25 Recently, another case involving 6.8 billion
worth of shabu contained in the seized magnetic lifters in Cavite were
successfully smuggled according to PDEA Director general Aaron
Aquino.26 Worst, he lamented that these illegal drugs could already be
circulating the streets.27 The government’s failure to curb this has
redounded to the war against the poor. The rich escaping liabilities while
the vulnerable poor are suffering. Law enforcement agencies are
capacitated not to go after the “big fish” but only those whom they can
bully – the poor. Is this justice? We say no.

We are not advocating that if you are poor, you should not be
prosecuted. The law should be applied regardless of the status in life.
What we are saying is that these persons including the accused herein are
merely victims of circumstances. They should not be punished severely for
22
Patrick Quintos. “Poor Filipinos most vulnerable in Duterte's drug war: study”. https://news.abs-
cbn.com/focus/06/25/18/poor-filipinos-most-vulnerable-in-dutertes-drug-war-study. Retrieved on 09-11-2018.
23
Id.
24
Zigor Aldama. “How Philippines war on drugs has become a war on the poor”.
https://www.scmp.com/magazines/post-magazine/long-reads/article/2129538/how-philippines-war-drugs-has-
become-war-poor . Retrieved on 09-11-2018.
25
CNN Philippines. “Valenzuela court junks drug case vs. suspects in ₱6.4B shabu smuggling”.
http://cnnphilippines.com/news/2018/05/03/valenzuela-court-drug-case-customs-shabu.html. Retrieved on 09-11-
2018.
26
Romina Cabrera. “Shabu worth P6.8 billion slips past Customs”.
https://www.philstar.com/headlines/2018/08/11/1841547/shabu-worth-p68-billion-slips-past-customs. Retrieved on
09-11-2018.
27
Id.

Motion for Reconsideration

Crim.Case No. 12575 & 12576
Page 7 of 11
something which they are only a victim for. The essence of true justice is
the equality in law within the limits of situations attending at a particular
point in time.

No less than our Supreme Court has recognized this. In August 2017,
they declared as unconstitutional Section 23 of the Comprehensive
Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.28 This allowed plea bargain in drug cases.
Even before this highly coveted case 29 allowing plea bargaining, the
Supreme Court speaking through Justice Leonen in Lescano vs. People,30
recognizes this inequity:

It is lamentable that while our dockets are clogged with prosecutions

under Republic Act No. 9165 involving small-time drug users and
retailers, we are seriously short of prosecutions involving the
proverbial “big fish.” We are swamped with cases involving small fry
who have been arrested for miniscule amounts. While they are
certainly a bane to our society, small retailers are but low-lying fruits
in an exceedingly vast network of drug cartels. Both law enforcers
and prosecutors should realize that the more effective and efficient
strategy is to focus resources more on the source and true leadership
of these nefarious organizations. Otherwise, all these executive and
judicial resources expended to attempt to convict an accused for 0.05
gram of shabu under doubtful custodial arrangements will hardly
make a dent in the overall picture. It might in fact be distracting our
law enforcers from their more challenging task: to uproot the causes of
this drug menace. We stand ready to assess cases involving greater
amounts of drugs and the leadership of these cartels.

As an offshoot of the Estipona31 case, in April 2018, the highest court

of the land released Administrative Matter No. 18-03-16-SC (Adoption of
the Plea Bargaining Framework in Drug Cases). The question that comes to
mind is why the need to release such a framework when it is within the
powers of the court to approve or deny a plea bargain brought before it. To
our mind, said framework was released to ensure that justice will be served
under the present condition taking into consideration also state policy. A
careful analysis of the said framework would again put one into thinking
that why consider only “shabu” and “marijuana” as those who can avail of
this benefit. There are also other illegal drugs but the framework is clear
that such is only applicable when the illegal drugs involved are “shabu”
and “marijuana”. Again, to our mind, the reason behind this policy is
justice. “Shabu” and “marijuana” are only those which the underprivileged
members of society can have hand into for its being accessible in terms of
financial consideration. These are the illegal drugs wandering the avenues
28
Estipona vs. Lobrigo, G.R. No. 226679, August 15, 2017.
29
Id.
30
G.R. No. 214490, January 16, 2013 citing People v. Holgado, G.R. No. 207992, August 11, 2014.
31
G.R. No. 226679, August 15, 2017.

Motion for Reconsideration

Crim.Case No. 12575 & 12576
Page 8 of 11
of the less privileged. The court is not blind to what there is. The Supreme
Court knows this and thus exemplifies the saying that those who have less in
life should have more in law in this framework. We beseech this Honorable
Court to take this into consideration.

Moreover, our justice system is not a perfect one. There is no

guarantee that this court will render verdict accurately considering the
circumstances above enumerated. As earlier noted, this court will have to
agree that one of the pillars of this system we are implementing is very
much abusive. This court cannot close its eyes on this. How many times
was this Honorable Court confronted with cases it dismissed because
government agents have trampled on basic and guaranteed rights of those
who are involved. How about those which proceeded to trial? Are we sure
that these government agents have really performed their tasks
conscientiously? Using the words of our Supreme Court, it said “if we do
not compassionately bend backwards and flex technicalities in this instance, is the
disgrace and misery of incarceration for a crime which he might not have
committed after all.”32 We are not justifying wrong doings but the court
should not lay by also these realities which we are into at present.

As above noted, these members of our society are most often the
subject of the intensified campaign of the government against illegal drugs
because they are the easy fry of rude law enforcers. How can they fight the
vast resources of the government? This alone paints a perfect picture of the
imbalance, a great disparity at that. This court must come in to make sure
that this is addressed at it is his duty to do so. We are advocating and
convincing this Honorable Court to give justice where justice is due within
the limits of these truths we are currently facing vis-à-vis established
policies. In that, the essence of this concept we are forwarding will be best
realized.

Finally, as to whether the prosecutor has given his consent to the

motion of the accused to accept and pronounce his guilt to a lesser offense,
we are of the belief that indeed they consented. The only issue at hand is
the penalty to be imposed. It is in that part of the motion that the
prosecution vigorously objected. With that, we beseech the Honorable
Court to settle this difference. This is consonance with the pronouncement
of the Supreme Court in Hipos, Sr. vs. Hon. Bay33 citing People vs. Montesa,
Jr.,34 to wit:

The rule is settled that once a criminal complaint or information is

filed in court, any disposition thereof, such as its dismissal or the
conviction or acquittal of the accused, rests in the sound discretion of
the court. While the prosecutor retains the discretion and control of
32
De Guzman vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 103276.  April 11, 1996.
33
G.R. No. 174813-15, March 17, 2009.
34
G.R. No. 114302, September 29, 1995.

Motion for Reconsideration

Crim.Case No. 12575 & 12576
Page 9 of 11
 the prosecution of the case, he cannot impose his opinion on the court.
The court is the best and sole judge on what to do with the case.

The Supreme Court reiterates that where an issue pertaining to a particular

case pending before it is obtaining, it is the court and the court alone who
has the power to settle it. Similarly, to this case, the issue of whether what
lesser offense would the accused admit his guilt to, Section 11 or Section 12
of R.A. 9165, would be at the disposal of the court since the accused and the
prosecution did not come to an agreement. The court should not be
beholden to DOJ Department Circular No. 027 dated June 26, 2018 being
raised by the prosecutor if it wants justice to prevail.

In conclusion, we now say that this court can and is not prohibited to
bend the rules when its goal is to render effective justice to all concerned.
The rule is not a hard and fast one. It can flex sometimes to accommodate
those who cannot go up. In humility, we ask for the Honorable Court’s
compassion that it do so in this case by granting the motion of the accused.
When the court will do so, it did not only render effective justice but it also
attained the objective of the rule of ensuring the just, speedy and
inexpensive disposition of every action and proceeding.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is respectfully prayed that the

Honorable Court reconsiders its Order denying the motion of the accused
to plea bargain in Criminal Case No. 12575 and to allow him to plead
guilty to the lesser offense of Violation of Sec. 12, Article II of R.A. 9165 in
the said criminal case.

Other just and equitable reliefs under the premises are likewise
prayed for.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this September 13, 2018 at San

Fernando City, La Union, Philippines.

PUBLIC ATTORNEY’S OFFICE

San Fernando City (LU) District Office
Counsel for the Accused
Justice Hall, Sevilla
San Fernando City, La Union
By:

GILBERT R. HUFANA

Motion for Reconsideration

Crim.Case No. 12575 & 12576
Page 10 of 11
 Public Attorney II
Roll No. 61392; March 27, 2012; Manila
IBP No. Lifetime No. 018981; IBP La Union Chapter
MCLE Compliance No. V-0002509; May 29, 2014

NOTICE OF HEARING

The Branch Clerk of Court

RTC Branch 26
San Fernando City, La Union

Greetings! Please submit the foregoing MOTION FOR

RECONSIDERATION for the consideration and approval of the Honorable
Court immediately upon receipt hereof.

GILBERT R. HUFANA

Copy furnished:

PROS. FLORENCE MARIE GACAD-ULEP

PROS. MANUEL DULNUAN, JR.
OFFICE OF THE PROVINCIAL PROSECUTOR
Justice Hall, Sevilla
San Fernando City, La Union

Motion for Reconsideration

Crim.Case No. 12575 & 12576
Page 11 of 11