Case Digest (G.R. No. 163972-77)
Facts:
In Joselito Raniero J. Daan v. The Hon. Sandiganbayan, Fourth Division (G.R. Nos. 163972–77, March 28, 2008), petitioner Joselito Raniero J. Daan and co-accused Benedicto E. Kuizon were indicted for three counts of malversation of public funds (amounts totaling ₱18,690.00) and three counts of falsification of public documents before the Sandiganbayan. The charge stemmed from allegedly falsified time books and payrolls for laborers on the new municipal hall project in Bato, Leyte, claiming wages for work not performed. At arraignment, petitioner offered to withdraw his plea of not guilty in exchange for a plea of guilty to lesser offenses: (a) falsification by a private individual in lieu of falsification by a public officer (Revised Penal Code Art. 172); and (b) failure of an accountable officer to render accounts rather than malversation (Revised Penal Code Art. 218). The Office of the Special Prosecutor recommended acceptance, noting full restitution (₱18,860.00) and voluntaryCase Digest (G.R. No. 163972-77)
Facts:
- Parties and Original Charges
- Joselito Raniero J. Daan (petitioner) and Benedicto E. Kuizon were charged before the Sandiganbayan with three counts of malversation of public funds involving ₱3,293.00, ₱1,869.00, and ₱13,528.00 respectively.
- They were also indicted for three counts of falsification of public documents by public officers for allegedly falsifying the time book and payrolls of laborers in the construction of the new municipal hall of Bato, Leyte.
- Plea Bargaining Proposals and Prosecution Recommendation
- In the falsification cases, the accused offered to withdraw their plea of “not guilty” and plead guilty to the lesser offense of falsification by a private individual, relying on mitigation for confession and voluntary surrender. The prosecution found this acceptable to strengthen the case against Mayor Kuizon.
- In the malversation counts, they offered to plead guilty to the lesser crime of failure of an accountable officer to render accounts, noting that petitioner had already restituted the total amount of ₱18,860.00. The prosecution likewise recommended acceptance.
- Sandiganbayan Resolution and Subsequent Proceedings
- In a Resolution dated March 25, 2004, the Sandiganbayan denied petitioner’s Motion to Plea Bargain for lack of cogent reasons justifying approval.
- A Motion for Reconsideration was denied in a Resolution dated May 31, 2004. Thereafter, petitioner filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, seeking to overturn the Sandiganbayan’s denial.
Issues:
- Whether the Sandiganbayan committed grave abuse of discretion in denying petitioner’s plea bargaining offer despite prosecution consent and public restitution.
- Whether the lesser offenses proposed—falsification by a private individual (Article 172, RPC) and failure to render account by an accountable officer (Article 218, RPC)—are necessarily included in the original charges of falsification of public documents (Article 171, RPC) and malversation (Article 217, RPC).
- Whether equitable considerations, including petitioner’s restitution of ₱18,860.00 and his non‐accountable‐officer status, warrant approval of the plea bargain.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)