PP v Majingcar, GR 249629, 2-15-21 ( Requisites for a plea to a lesser offense)

Facts
Respondents Edgar Majingcar y Yabut (Majingcar) and Christopher Ryan Llaguno y Matos (Llaguno) were
charged with violations of Sections 5 and 11, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165

The respondents both conspired in the selling, dispensing, and delivering to poseur buyer SPO2 Clifford
De Jesus the Methampethamine Hydrochloride popularly known as 'shabu' and the possession of it.

On arraignment, respondents Majingcar and Llaguno pleaded not guilty to both charges. Thereafter, trial
ensued

On separate occasions, respondents submitted their proposals to plead guilty to a lesser offense,
specifically to violation of Section 12, Article II of RA 9165

The prosecution counter proposed that respondents plead guilty to violation of Section 5, albeit the
penalty would be that as provided under paragraph 3, Section 11 of RA 9165

As for respondents' proposal to plead guilty in on violation of Section 12 of RA 9165, in lieu of Section
11, the prosecution interposed no objection.

The RTC allowed both respondents to plead to a lesser offense, as proposed. Consequently,
respondents were re-arraigned they changed their individual pleas of "not guilty" to "guilty" to the
lesser offense of violation of Section 12, Article II of RA 9165 in both Criminal Case

On a petition for certiorari initiated by the People, dismissed the petition on two (2) grounds: late filing
and lack of merit.

In the Supreme Court, the People now prays anew that respondents' pleas to a lesser offense of
violations of Section 12, Article II of RA 9165 be set aside, and the case, remanded to the trial court for
further proceedings. It faults the Court of Appeals for ruling that its petition for certiorari was filed out
of time.

On the merits, the People faults the Court of Appeals for upholding respondents' plea bargaining
proposal over the vehement objection of the prosecution. It asserts that it does not dispense with the
required consent of the prosecutor whenever an accused puts on the table a plea bargaining proposal.
Hence, the trial court gravely abused its discretion when it allowed respondents to plead to a lesser
offense.

Too, the trial court gravely abused its discretion when it declared as unconstitutional DOJ Circular Nos.
027 and 061 and RPO Order No. 027-E-18 when none of the parties themselves even prayed for it.

Since the plea bargaining was improper, respondents cannot claim double jeopardy. They can still be
prosecuted under the original charges filed against them.

The Court ruled that the Court of Appeals did not err in upholding respondents' plea to a lesser offense
of violation of Section 12, Article II of RA 9165 in Criminal Case No. 2016-0775 which carried the
conformity of the prosecutor
In Criminal Case for illegal possession of drugs, the prosecution interposed no objection to respondents'
proposal to plead to the lesser offense of violation of Section 12, Article II of RA 9165. Whether to grant
this proposal already rested upon the sound discretion of the court.

However, the Court ruled that The Court of Appeals committed reversible error when it affirmed the
grant of respondents' proposal to plead guilty to the lesser offense of violation of Section 12, Article II of
RA 9165 in Criminal Case No. 2016-0774, sans the consent of the prosecution which invariably opposed
it

Section 2, Rule 116 of the Rules of Court states:

Section 2. Plea of guilty to a lesser offense. – At arraignment, the accused, with the consent of the
offended party and the 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.

Hence, in drug cases where there is no private offended party, the consent of the prosecutor is the
operative act which vests discretion upon the court to allow or reject the accused's proposal to plead
guilty to a lesser offense. Thus, where this consent is withheld, no such discretion gets vested in the
court.

Pp. v. Mira, G.R. No. 175324, October 10, 2007 (Plea of guilty to a capital offense)

Appellant Edison Mira was charged the crime of Rape through sexual intercourse by means of force,
threat, and intimidation with his 11-year old daughter.

On arraignment, appellant entered a guilty plea to the offense charged. Thereafter, the trial court
proceeded with the reception of evidence for the prosecution which presented five witnesses

The defense did not present evidence to counter the charges against appellant, considering his earlier
plea of guilt.

The trial court then rendered a decision finding appellant guilty of rape and sentencing him to suffer the
penalty of death. The trial court relied heavily on the testimonies of the victim and her younger sister in
establishing the identity of appellant and the act of rape committed against AAA.

Appellant directly appealed his conviction to this Court. The Court of Appeals rendered the assailed
judgment affirming with modification the trial court’s decision

Appellant contends that the trial court erred in not conducting a searching inquiry into the voluntariness
and full comprehension of the consequences of his plea and in failing to inform him if he desires to
present evidence in his behalf.

The controversy centers on the legal consequences of an improvident plea of guilt.

Section 3, Rule 116 of the Rules of Court provides:

SEC. 3. Plea of guilty to capital offense; reception of evidence.—When the accused pleads guilty to a
capital offense, the court shall conduct a searching inquiry into the voluntariness and full
comprehension of the consequences of his plea and shall require the prosecution to prove his guilt and
the precise degree to culpability. The accused may present evidence in his behalf.

The searching inquiry conducted by the trial court falls short of these requirements. The inquiry only
consisted of two simple questions, specifically:

 Do you understand the meaning of plea of guilty for the crime charged against you for rape?
 Do you know that when you pleaded [sic] guilty you can be meted out of the supreme penalty;
death or life imprisonment?

The appellant was not fully apprised of the consequences of his guilt plea. In fact, as argued by
appellant, he was led to believe that the penalty for his crime could still be reduced upon his plea of
guilty, especially when the trial court informed him that he could be meted the supreme penalty of
death or life imprisonment.25 Moreover, the trial court judge failed to inform appellant of his right to
adduce evidence despite the guilty plea. Verily, appellant was deprived of the rights guaranteed by the
Constitution.

Notwithstanding the incautiousness that attended appellant’s guilty plea, we are not inclined to remand
the case to the trial court as suggested by appellant. Convictions based on an improvident plea of guilt
are set aside only if such plea is the sole basis of the judgment. If the trial court relied on sufficient and
credible evidence in finding the accused guilty, the judgment must be sustained, because then it is
predicated not merely on the guilty plea of the accused but also on evidence proving his commission of
the offense charged.26

The RTC and the Court of Appeals are unanimous in sustaining the credibility of the prosecution
witnesses. The trial court made the following observations:

All the [p]rosecution witnesses are one in pin-pointing Edison Mira as the one who raped [AAA]. The
testimonies of his two (2) children, [BBB], an 8-year old, younger sister of [AAA] and [AAA] herself
categorically declared without hesistation regarding the [c]ertainty of the rape committed by Edison
Mira against [AAA]. This two (2) children [are] [very] credible and convincing and defense were not able
to destroy the testimonies.

These testimonies, taken together with the medical findings that AAA sustained abrasions on the vulva
and that her hymen was no longer intact, lead to no other conclusion that she had been raped and that
appellant, her father, was the perpetrator.

PP v Comendador, GR No. L-38000, 9-19-80PP V talusan, GR 179187, 7-14-09 (Improvident plea of

guilty)

Facts
The case of People v. Comendador involves the conviction of Diosdado Comendador for the crime of
robbery with homicide.

The trial court based its ruling on Comendador's plea of guilty, which it found to have been freely and
voluntarily given, despite the court's warning of the possibility of the death penalty.

The court also considered Comendador's extrajudicial confession, marked as Exhibit "J", as well as the
testimonies of several witnesses.

Testimonies of Witnesses

Edilberto Zaragoza, the father of the deceased, testified that his son had money of his own but still gave
him P200.00 for his vacation. He later learned that his son had been robbed and killed in Toledo City.

Dolores Reponte testified that she saw Comendador with the deceased a few hours before the body was
found.

Angelo Obenque, a neighbor of Comendador, testified that Comendador visited his house on the day of
the crime with items belonging to the victim.

Dioscoro Panda-an, a police corporal, testified that he found the fatal weapon and a pair of shoes near
the body at the crime scene.

Edilberto Evangelista, a police lieutenant, testified that Comendador admitted to the robbery and killing
and turned over the stolen items.

The prosecution presented its evidence and rested its case.

The defense did not present any evidence.

Appeal and Rejection of Arguments

In his appeal, Comendador raised several errors, including the argument that his plea of guilty should
have been considered as a plea of not guilty.

The Supreme Court rejected these arguments and affirmed the trial court's judgment.

Plea of Guilty and Admissibility of Extrajudicial Confession

The Supreme Court held that a plea of guilty is a judicial confession of guilt and an admission of all the
material facts alleged in the information.

While it is true that accused-appellant requested for a lesser penalty, such does not make his plea of
guilty conditional. It remains to be an admission of the facts alleged in the information charging robbery
with homicide. At most, said plea for a lesser penalty is an appeal to emotion as it does not assail,
restrict or qualify the information. It does not even specify the penalty desired to be imposed.

That the accused-appellant intended his plea of guilty to be unconditional is further 'bolstered by the
fact that he did not adduce any evidence in his favor and merely submitted the case for decision.
Although he had an opportunity to do so after the prosecution rested its case, he did not avail of the
same. He remained resolute in his decision to own the crime. His claim, therefore, that his plea of guilty
is conditional is inconsistent with his candor, spontaneity and insistent admission of guilt in the trial
court.

Comendador's plea of guilty was considered unconditional, despite his request for a lesser penalty.

The court also held that Comendador's extrajudicial confession was admissible, even though it was
obtained without the presence of counsel, as it was given before the effectivity of the New Constitution.

Sufficient Evidence and Identification of Corpus Delicti

The court held that the evidence presented by the prosecution, including the testimonies of witnesses
and the stolen items recovered from Comendador, proved his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

The court rejected the argument that the corpus delicti (the fact of the crime) was not properly
identified, as there was sufficient testimonial evidence to establish the death of the victim.

Modification of Penalty

The court modified the trial court's judgment by imposing the penalty of reclusion perpetua instead of
death, as there were no aggravating circumstances present.

The court found that the aggravating circumstances of craft, uninhabited place, and abuse of confidence
or obvious ungratefulness were not supported by the evidence.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction of Diosdado Comendador for robbery with homicide and
sentenced him to reclusion perpetua, based on his plea of guilty, extrajudicial confession, and sufficient
evidence proving his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.