REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

6TH JUDICIAL REGION

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
BRANCH 25
ILOILO CITY

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,

Plaintiff,
-versus- Criminal Case No. 09871-2360
For: Qualified Theft
CALEB C. BRUTOS,
Accused.
X--------------------------------------------X

PLEA-BARGAINING PROPOSAL

The Accused CALEB C. BRUTOS, by and through the undersigned

counsel on record, most respectfully submits the following Plea Bargaining
Proposal unto this Honorable Court for consideration and approval, and
avers:

1. That the Accused has been charged for QUALIFIED THEFT

punishable by reclusion temporal in its maximum period;

2. That the Accused comes before the Honorable Court with this Plea
Bargaining Agreement after the Prosecution is about to rest its case.
Notwithstanding Rule 116, Section 2 of the Rules of Court, which
allows the accused to plea for a lesser offense at the arraignment, the
Supreme Court has nonetheless sustained plea bargaining during trial
and even after 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

1 of 3
 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:

“After 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 the Accused Caleb C. Brutos, hereby withdraws his plea of not
guilty and offers to enter a plea to the lesser offense of SIMPLE
THEFT under Article 308 of the Revised Penal Code, which is
necessarily included in Qualified Theft, the offense charged under
Criminal Case No. 09871-2360 with admission of the facts constituting
the lesser offense, but not the offense charged;

5. That the penalty for such offense is prision mayor in its minimum and
medium periods to be imposed in the maximum period if the value of
stolen property exceeds 22,000 pesos, and one (1) year for each
additional ten thousand pesos (P10,000.00);

6. That the Accused also prays that the circumstance of plea of guilt and
extreme poverty and necessity be appreciated in his favor in the
imposition of the penalty;

7. Thus, in People vs. Macbul, G.R. No. L-48976, October 11, 1943, the
trial court considered extreme poverty and necessity as a mitigating

2 of 3
 circumstance falling within Article 13, paragraph 10 of the Revised
Penal Code, which authorizes the court to consider in favor of an
accused “any other circumstance of a similar nature and analogous to
those above mentioned;”

8. Consequently, the Accused by way of restitution or penalty, is willing

to return the stolen property if this plea bargaining proposal is admitted
by the Prosecution and approved by the Honorable Court.

Respectfully and humbly submitted.

City of Iloilo, Philippines, February 20, 2023.

ATTY. ANDREA B. DELOVIAR

Counsel for Accused
Notarial Commission valid until 12/31/2023
Roll of Attorney’s No. 743440
PTR No. 14344-000 Iloilo City 12/31/2023
IBP No. 123-54321 Iloilo City 12/31/2023
MCLE Compliance No. IV-01220-2020

At my instance and with my conformity:

CALEB C. BRUTOS
Accused

Doc. No. 19
Page No. 4
Book No. 1
Series of 2023

3 of 3