DAAN vs SANDIGANBAYAN

G.R. Nos. 163972-77, March 28, 2008

FACTS:
Petitioner, together with Mayor Kuizon were charged for three counts of malversation of public funds by falsifying the time book
and payrolls for given period making it appear that some laborers worked on the construction of the new municipal hall building
of Bato, Leyte. In addition to the charge for malversation, the accused were also indicted for three counts of falsification of
public document by a public officer or employee.

In the falsification cases, the accused offered to withdraw their plea of not guilty and substitute the same with a plea of guilty,
provided, the mitigating circumstances of confession or plea of guilt and voluntary surrender will be appreciated in their favor. In
the alternative, if such proposal is not acceptable, said accused proposed instead to substitute their plea of not guilty to the crime
of falsification of public document by a public officer or employee with a plea of guilty, but to the lesser crime of falsification of a
public document by a private individual. On the other hand, in the malversation cases, the accused offered to substitute their
plea of not guilty thereto with a plea of guilty, but to the lesser crime of failure of an accountable officer to render accounts.

Insofar as the falsification cases are concerned, the prosecution found as acceptable the proposal of the accused to plead guilty
to the lesser crime of falsification of public document by a private individual for it will strengthen the cases against the principal
accused, Mayor Kuizon who appears to be the mastermind of these criminal acts. However, the Sandiganbayan denied
petitioner’s Motion to Plea Bargain, despite favorable recommendation by the prosecution, on the main ground that no cogent
reason was presented to justify its approval. Likewise, it denied petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration.

ISSUE:
Is the lesser offense of falsification of a public document by a private individual is necessary included in the crime of falsification
of public document by a public officer, hence petitioner may plead guilty to the former?

RULING: YES.
The lesser offenses of Falsification by Private Individuals and Failure to Render Account by an Accountable Officer are necessarily
included in the crimes of Falsification of Public Documents and Malversation of Public Funds, respectively, with which petitioner
was originally charged.

An offense may be said to necessarily include another when some of the essential elements or ingredients of the former as
alleged in the complaint or information constitute the latter. And vice versa, an offense may be said to be necessarily included in
another when the essential ingredients of the former constitute or form part of those constituting the latter (Art. 171 vis-a-vis
Art. 172).

In this case, the allegations in the Informations filed against petitioner are sufficient to hold petitioner liable for the lesser
offenses. In the charge for Falsification of Public Documents, petitioner may plead guilty to the lesser offense of Falsification by
Private Individuals inasmuch as it does not appear that petitioner took advantage of his official position in allegedly falsifying
the timebook and payroll of the Municipality of Bato, Leyte. In the same vein, he may plead guilty for rendering account by an
accountable officer instead of malversation of public funds.

Therefore, that some of the essential elements of offenses charged in this case likewise constitute the lesser offenses, then
petitioner may plead guilty to such lesser offenses.

Moreover, petitioner is not an accountable officer in that the nature of his duty as foreman/timekeeper does not permit or
require possession or custody of local government funds, not to mention that petitioner has already restituted the amount
ofP18,860.00 involved in this case.

Additional Info:
Plea bargaining in criminal cases is a process whereby the accused and the prosecution work out a mutually satisfactory
disposition of the case subject to court approval. It usually involves the defendant's pleading guilty to a lesser offense or to only
one or some of the counts of a multi-count indictment in return for a lighter sentence than that for the graver charge.
 PEOPLE vs ALICANDO
251 SCRA 293, December 12, 1995

FACTS:
Accused was convicted with a crime of rape with homicide of a 4 year old girl. He was arrested and during the
interrogation he made a confession of the crime without the assistance of a counsel. By virtue of his uncounseled confession the
police came to know where to find the evidences consisting of the victim’s personal things like clothes stained with blood which
was admitted to court as pieces of evidence. The victim pleaded guilty during the arraignment and was convicted with the death
penalty. The case was forwarded to the SC for automatic review.

ISSUES:
1. Was the arraignment of Alicando valid?
2. Was the plea of guilt made by Alicando valid?
3. Were the pieces of physical evidence and the confession gathered by PO3 Danilo Tan as a result of custodial
interrogations where appellant verbally confessed to the crime without the benefit of counsel admissible as evidence in
court?

RULING:
1. NO, the arraignment is null and void. The trial judge failed to follow section (1) (a) of Rule 116 on arraignment, which
implements the constitutional right of appellant to be informed of the nature and cause of accusation against him. It
also denied appellant of his consti right to due process of law. According to the Supreme Court, the records do not
reveal that the Information against the appellant was read in the language or dialect known to him.

2. NO, the plea of guilt is likewise null and void. The trial court violated Section 3 Rule 116 when it accepted the plea of
guilt of the appellant. Section 3 Rule 116 states that the court shall conduct searching inquiry into the voluntariness and
full comprehension of the appellant of the consequences of his plea. The Trial Court records do not reveal any
information about the personality profile of the appellant which can serve as a trustworthy index of his capacity to give
a free and informed plea of guilt. The questions were also framed in English yet there is no inkling that appellant
understands English. The trial court also did not bother to explain to the appellant the essential elements of the crime
of rape with homicide.

3. NO, the pieces of evidence and the confession of Alicando were “fruits of the poisonous tree,”, gathered as a result of
the custodial interrogations where appellant verbally confessed to the crime without the benefit of counsel is
inadmissible as evidence in court. They are covered by the exclusionary rule under Section 12 paragraphs (1) and (3) of
Article III of the 1987 Constitution.