REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT

FOURTH JUDICIAL REGION
BRANCH 123
MUNTINLUPA CITY

THE PEOPLE OF THE

PHILIPPINES,
Plaintiff, CRIM CASE No.________

-versus- -for-

VIOLATION OF ARTICLE II
SECTION 11 OF REPUBLIC
ANTON GABITO y GABON ACT 9165 (Comprehensive
Accused. Dangerous Drugs Act
of 2002)

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

PLEA-BARGAINING PROPOSAL

The Accused ANTON G. GABITO, 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 Violation of Article II,

Section 11 of Republic Act 9165 (Comprehensive Dangerous
Drugs Act of 2002) for possession of 0.03 grams of shabu
punishable by Imprisonment of twelve (12) years and one (1)
day to twenty (20) years and a fine ranging from Three hundred
thousand pesos (P300,000.00) to Four hundred thousand pesos
(P400,000.00);

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 Anton G. Gabito, hereby withdraws his plea of

not guilty and offers to enter a plea to the lesser offense of USE
OF DANGEROUS DRUGS under Section 11 of Republic Act 9165
(Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002), which is
allowed where the quantity of “shabu” seized is less than 5
grams;

5. That the penalty for such offense 6 months of rehabilitation for

the 1st offense;

Respectfully and humbly submitted.

April 11, 2018, Muntinlupa City, Philippines.

JESUS ROS LAPUZ, JR.

Counsel for Accused

At my instance and with my conformity:

ANTON G. GABITO
Accused