Republic of the Philippines
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
11TH Judicial Region
Branch 23
General Santos City
PEOPLE OF THE CRIM. CASE NO.: 27376 &
PHILIPPINES, 27377
Plaintiff,
-versus- -for-
JENIFER CANTOJA, VIOLATION OF SEC. 5 & 11
Accused OF R.A. 9165
x----------------------------------------
--x
PLEA BARGAINING PROPOSAL
The Accused JENIFER CANTOJA, by and through counsel on
record, most respectfully submits 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 SEC.
5 & 11 OF R.A. 9165 punishable by a life imprisonment to death and
fine ranging from P500,000.00 to P10,000,00.00 and imprisonment of
12 years and 1 day to 20 years and fine ranging from P300,000.00 to
P400,000.00, respectively;
2. That Accused comes before the Honorable Court with this
Plea Bargaining Agreement after the accused was arraigned. Section
2 of Rule 116 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure provides
that “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
Page 1 of 3
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.”
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 there cited, among others, People vs.
Villarama, G.R. No. 99287, June 23, 210 SCRA246; 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
Page 2 of 3
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 Jennifer Cantoja, hereby withdraws her
plea of not guilty and offers to enter a plea to the lesser offense of
Posession of Equipment, Instrument, Apparatus And Other
Paraphernalia For dangerous Drugs under Sec. 12 of RA 9165, which
is necessarily included in the offense of Sale, Trading, Etc. of
Dangerous Drugs under Sec. 5 of RA 9165, with admission of the
facts constituting the lesser offense, but not the offense charged;
5. That the penalty for such offense is imprisonment of six
(6) months and one (1) day to four (4) years and fine ranging from
P10,000.00 to P50,000.00.;
6. That Accused also prays that the circumstance of plea of
guilt be appreciated in her favor in the imposition of the penalty;
8. Consequently, Accused by way of restitution/penalty, is
willing to return thestolen property if this plea bargaining proposal is
admitted by the Prosecutionand approved by the Honorable Court.
Page 3 of 3
