G.R. No. 163972-77 - Daan vs. Sandiganbayan

Case Summary (G.R. No. 163972-77)

Petitioner

Daan was charged as one of several accused in multiple informations alleging malversation of public funds and falsification of public documents. He occupied the position of foreman/timekeeper and is alleged to have signed payrolls and timebooks to reflect wages paid to laborers who did not work on the municipal hall construction project.

Respondent and Forum

The immediate respondent is the Sandiganbayan (Fourth Division), which denied Daan’s motion to plea bargain and his motion for reconsideration. The Office of the Special Prosecutor recommended approval of the proposed plea bargain.

Key Dates

Relevant resolutions by the Sandiganbayan denying the plea offer and reconsideration: March 25, 2004 and May 31, 2004. The Supreme Court decision granting the petition was rendered in 2008. Under the applicable instruction, the 1987 Constitution governs the legal basis of the decision.

Applicable Law

Primary procedural authorities relied upon in the decision: Section 2, Rule 116 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure (plea of guilty to a lesser offense) and Sections 1 and 2, Rule 118 (pre-trial; pre-trial agreements). Rule 120, Section 5 (when an offense includes or is included in another) was applied to determine whether lesser offenses are necessarily included. Substantive offenses considered include: Falsification of Public Documents (Art. 171, RPC), Falsification by Private Individuals (Art. 172, RPC), Malversation of Public Funds (Art. 217, RPC), and Failure to Render Account by an Accountable Officer (Art. 218, RPC). Relevant jurisprudence cited includes People v. Villarama and related precedents on the exercise of judicial discretion in plea bargaining.

Antecedent Facts and Plea Proposal

Daan and co-accused were charged for three counts of malversation involving sums of P3,293.00, P1,869.00, and P13,528.00, and three counts of falsification of public document. The accused sought to withdraw pleas of not guilty and plead guilty in different permutations: (a) in the falsification counts, to plead guilty to falsification by a private individual (a lesser offense under Article 172) instead of falsification of public documents, and (b) in the malversation counts, to plead guilty to failure of an accountable officer to render accounts (Article 218) instead of malversation (Article 217). The prosecution accepted these proposals as strengthening its case against the alleged mastermind and because Daan had restituted the total amount of P18,860.00 and had voluntarily surrendered.

Procedural History

Despite the prosecution’s favorable recommendation, the Sandiganbayan denied the plea bargain on March 25, 2004 and denied reconsideration on May 31, 2004, reasoning that approval would trivialize the offenses and undermine deterrence against public graft. Petitioner filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition in the Supreme Court challenging the Sandiganbayan’s denial as grave abuse of discretion.

Legal Standards on Plea Bargaining

Plea bargaining permits an accused, with the consent of the offended party and the prosecutor, to plead guilty to a lesser offense necessarily included in the offense charged (Sec. 2, Rule 116). The Rules (Sec. 1, Rule 118) require that pre-trial consider plea bargaining and that pre-trial agreements be reduced to writing and approved by the court. Acceptance of a plea to a lesser offense is discretionary; it is not a matter of right. Jurisprudence distinguishes plea bargaining made after the prosecution rests (where available evidence in the record is the basis for approving a lesser plea) from plea bargaining at pre-trial (where the court’s discretion, while broad, must not be arbitrary, capricious, or amount to grave abuse).

Sandiganbayan’s Reasoning for Denial

The Sandiganbayan denied the plea proposal primarily on policy grounds: it found no cogent justification demonstrating that approval would benefit the public and feared that acceptance would trivialize the charges, send the wrong deterrent message to potential public corrupters, and reduce the penalties below what the criminal acts merited.

Court’s Analysis: Discretion, Equity, and Supervisory Power

The Supreme Court recognized that the Sandiganbayan proffered valid policy concerns but concluded that, in the specific circumstances, equity and supervisory control warranted intervention. The Court emphasized that the exercise of discretion in pre-trial plea bargaining must not be arbitrary or capricious. It invoked equity to prevent grossly disparate outcomes and relied on supervisory authority to ensure equal justice — particularly where the prosecution supported the plea bargain, restitution was made, and the accused voluntarily surrendered. The Court drew an analogy to the Sandiganbayan’s own approval of a plea bargain in a high-profile case (Estrada) where timeliness and compliance with procedural requirements influenced approval, concluding that the same standards should apply here.

Elements of the Offenses and Inclusion Analysis

The Court examined the elements of the charged offenses and the proposed lesser offenses:

Falsification of Public Documents (Art. 171, par. 4): requires untruthful narration of facts, legal obligation to disclose the truth, absolute falsity of the narrated facts, and wrongful intent to injure a third person.
Falsification by Private Individuals (Art. 172, par. 1): covers similar acts of falsification by private individuals or public officers who did not take advantage of official position.
Malversation of Public Funds (Art. 217): requires that the offender be a public officer with custody or control of public funds or property for which he is accountable and that he appropriated, misappropriated, or consented to the taking thereof, or through negligence permitted the taking.
Failure to Render Account by an Accountable Officer (Art. 218): requires that the offender be an accountable public officer required to render accounts and that he failed to render an account within the prescribed period.

Under Rule 120, Section 5, an offense is necessarily included in another when some essential elements of the charged offense constitute the lesser offense.

Application of Law to Facts

Applying the inclusion test, the Court found that the lesser offenses proposed by Daan are necessarily included in the original charges. The falsification acts could fall with

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 163972-77)

Case Caption, Citation, and Decision Author

Reported at 573 Phil. 368; Third Division; G.R. Nos. 163972-77; decided March 28, 2008.
Case styled: Joselito Raniero J. Daan, Petitioner, v. The Hon. Sandiganbayan (Fourth Division), Respondent.
Decision penned by Justice Austria-Martinez.
Sandiganbayan Resolution (denying plea bargaining) was penned by Associate Justice Gregory S. Ong with concurrence of Associate Justices Norberto Y. Geraldez and Efren N. de la Cruz.
Concurrence in the Supreme Court decision by Justices Tinga, Chico-Nazario, Nachura, and Reyes.
Notation: In lieu of Justice Consuelo Ynares‑Santiago, per Special Order No. 497 dated March 14, 2008.

Antecedent Facts

Petitioner Joselito Raniero J. Daan (herein petitioner) and Benedicto E. Kuizon were charged in the Sandiganbayan in Criminal Cases Nos. 24167-24170, 24195-24196 (entitled "People of the Philippines, Plaintiff, v. Benedicto E. Kuizon, et al.").
The charges included:
- Three counts of malversation of public funds involving sums of P3,293.00, P1,869.00, and P13,528.00 respectively; and
- Three counts of falsification of public document by a public officer or employee.
The alleged scheme: falsification of the time book and payrolls to make it appear that certain laborers worked on the construction of the new municipal hall building of Bato, Leyte and collected salaries thereon when they actually did not.
Petitioner is described in prosecutorial memoranda as "merely designated as draftsman detailed as foreman/timekeeper of the Municipality of Bato, Leyte."

Plea Bargain Proposals Made by the Accused

In the falsification cases:
- The accused offered to withdraw their plea of "not guilty" and substitute it with a plea of "guilty" provided mitigating circumstances (confession or plea of guilt and voluntary surrender) would be appreciated.
- Alternatively, the accused offered to plead "guilty" not to falsification by a public officer or employee but to the lesser crime of falsification of a public document by a private individual (Article 172).
In the malversation cases:
- The accused offered to substitute "not guilty" with a plea of "guilty" to the lesser crime of Failure of an Accountable Officer to Render Accounts (Article 218).
The accused also emphasized mitigation by asserting:
- Petitioner was not an accountable officer and merely affixed his signature on payrolls on a "routinary basis," negating criminal intent; and
- The total amount involved is P18,860.00, which petitioner had already restituted.

Prosecution’s Position and Recommendation

The prosecution found acceptable the proposal that the accused plead guilty to the lesser offense of falsification by a private individual for the falsification counts.
- Rationale: pleading guilty to falsification by a private individual under Article 172 "will strengthen our cases against the principal accused, Municipal Mayor Benedicto Kuizon, who appears to be the master mind of these criminal acts."
For the malversation counts, the prosecution was amenable to the offer to plead guilty to the lesser crime of failure of an accountable officer to render accounts because petitioner "has already restituted the total amount of P18,860.00 as per official receipt issued by the provincial government of Leyte dated February 26, 2002" and "the damage caused to the government has already been restituted."
The Office of the Special Prosecutor, in a Memorandum dated August 16, 2002, recommended consideration of the plea bargain, noting restitution, voluntary surrender, willingness to plead to lesser offenses, and the fact that petitioner was a draftsman/foreman/timekeeper.

Sandiganbayan’s Action and Stated Reasoning for Denial

The Sandiganbayan denied petitioner’s Motion to Plea Bargain in a Resolution dated March 25, 2004.
The Sandiganbayan denied the subsequent Motion for Reconsideration in a Resolution dated May 31, 2004.
The Sandiganbayan’s principal ground for denying the plea bargaining motion:
- The plea bargain was not shown to "redound to the benefit of the public."
- Approving the proposal would "only serve to trivialize the seriousness of the charges against them and send the wrong signal to potential grafters in public office that the penalties they are likely to face would be lighter than what their criminal acts would have merited or that the economic benefits they are likely to derive from their criminal activities far outweigh the risks they face in committing them; thus, setting to naught the deterrent value of the laws intended to curb graft and corruption in government."

Petition to the Supreme Court: Relief Sought and Grounds

Petitioner filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition, with prayer for a temporary restraining order and/or writ of preliminary injunction under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, challenging the Sandiganbayan’s denial of his plea bargaining proposal.
Petitioner’s principal arguments:
- The Sandiganbayan committed grave abuse of discretion in denying his plea bargaining offer.
- Petitioner was not an accountable officer and only affixed his signature in a routine capacity, negating criminal intent.
- The amount involved was limited to P18,860.00, which had already been restituted.

Supreme Court’s Finding on Merits and Overview of Plea Bargaining Law

The petition was found meritorious.
Plea bargaining defined as a process whereby accused and prosecution work out a mutually satisfactory disposition subject to court approval; typically involves pleading guilty to a lesser offense or fewer counts for a lighter sentence.
Statutory and procedural provisions discussed:
- Section 2, Rule 116, Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure (Plea of guilty to a lesser offense): permits accused, with consent of offended party and prosecutor, to plead guilty to a lesser offense necessarily included in the offense charged; contains discretionary language ("may").
- Sections 1 and 2, Rule 118 of the Rules of Court (Pre-trial): require consideration of plea bargaining at pre-trial conference; agreements made at pre-trial must be reduced to writing, signed by the accused and counsel, and approved by the court.
- Section 5, Rule 120 of the Rules of Court: defines when an offense includes or is included in another—i.e., necessary inclusion when essential elements of one constitute the other.
Jurisprudential guidance cited:
- People v. Villarama: acceptance of offer to plead guilty to a lesser offense is addressed to trial court’s sound discretion and is not demandable as a matter of right.
- People v. Kayanan and concurring opinion in People v. Parohinog: where plea bargaining is offered after prosecution has rested, the only basis for allowing change of
...continue reading