View full case

JOSELITO RANIERO J. DAAN

FACTS:

Accused Joselito Raniero J. Daan (petitioner) questions the denial by the Sandiganbayan of his plea bargaining proposal. He, together with accused Benedicto E. Kuizon, were charged for malversation of public funds and falsification of public documents. The accused offered to plead guilty to a lesser offense in the falsification cases and to the lesser crime of failure of an accountable officer to render accounts in the malversation cases. The prosecution found the proposal acceptable and recommended its approval. However, the Sandiganbayan denied petitioner's motion, stating that no cogent reason was presented to justify its approval. Petitioner argues that he is not an accountable officer and that the amount involved has already been restituted. Petitioner filed a case for certiorari and prohibition with prayer for the issuance of a temporary restraining order and/or writ of preliminary injunction.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether plea bargaining during the pre-trial stage should be allowed.

  2. Whether the Sandiganbayan's rejection of petitioner's plea offer was valid.

  3. The issue in this case is whether the petitioner can plead guilty to the lesser offenses of Falsification by Private Individuals and Failure to Render Account by an Accountable Officer, instead of the original charges of Falsification of Public Documents and Malversation of Public Funds.

RULING:

  1. The trial court's exercise of discretion in plea bargaining during the pre-trial stage should neither be arbitrary nor amount to a capricious and whimsical exercise of discretion. The court's power must be exercised in a manner that does not evade a positive duty or act against the law. In this case, the Sandiganbayan rejected petitioner's plea offer on the ground that it would trivialize the seriousness of the charges and send the wrong signal to potential grafters. However, subsequent events and higher interests of justice and fair play require acceptance of petitioner's plea offer.

  2. The Sandiganbayan's rejection of petitioner's plea offer was based on valid reasons. The court believed that accepting the offer would undermine the deterrent value of laws against graft and corruption. However, considering the favorable recommendation of the Office of the Special Prosecutor, the court found no reason why the standards applied in a similar case should not be applied here. The petitioner had already restituted the damages caused to the government and was willing to plead guilty to a lesser offense. Therefore, the court should accept the plea offer.

  3. The court ruled that the petitioner can plead guilty to the lesser offenses of Falsification by Private Individuals and Failure to Render Account by an Accountable Officer. The court found that the allegations in the Informations filed against the petitioner are sufficient to hold him liable for the lesser offenses. It was also noted that the petitioner did not take advantage of his official position in allegedly falsifying the timebook and payroll. Furthermore, the court held that even though the Informations contain allegations which could make out a case for Malversation, absent the element of conversion, theoretically, the petitioner may still be held liable for Failure to Render Account if it is shown that he failed to render account in violation of a law or regulation.

PRINCIPLES:

  • Grave abuse of discretion implies a capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment that is equivalent to a lack of jurisdiction. It involves the exercise of power in an arbitrary manner due to passion, prejudice, or personal hostility, which amounts to a refusal to perform a duty or act in accordance with the law.

  • Equity jurisdiction complements legal jurisdiction by seeking to reach and do complete justice where inflexible rules and lack of adaptability hinder courts of law from achieving it. Equity focuses on the spirit, intent, and substance rather than the form and circumstance of a case. It allows for a judicious exercise of the court's power of control and supervision over lower court proceedings to ensure equal justice is served.

  • In order to establish the crime of Falsification of Public Documents, the following elements must concur: (a) the offender makes untruthful statements in a narration of facts; (b) the offender has a legal obligation to disclose the truth of the facts narrated; (c) the facts narrated by the offender are absolutely false; and (d) the perversion of truth was made with the intent of injuring a third person.

  • Falsification by Private Individuals has the following elements: (a) the offender is a private individual or a public officer or employee who did not take advantage of his official position; (b) the offender committed any of the acts of falsification enumerated under Article 171 of the Revised Penal Code; and (c) the falsification was committed in a public or official or commercial document.

  • The elements of Malversation of Public Funds are: (a) the offender is a public officer; (b) he has custody or control of funds or property by reason of his office; (c) the funds or property involved are public funds or property for which he is accountable; and (d) he has appropriated, taken, misappropriated, or has consented to or permitted the taking of such funds or property by another person.

  • Failure to Render Account by an Accountable Officer has the following elements: (a) the offender is a public officer; (b) the offender is an accountable officer for public funds or property; (c) the offender is required by law or regulation to render accounts to the COA or a provincial auditor; and (d) the offender fails to render an account for a period of two months after it should be rendered.

  • 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.

  • The Constitution guarantees every citizen the right to due process, which includes the right to be heard and the right to present evidence.

  • Administrative decisions must be based on substantial evidence and should not be arbitrary or capricious.

  • A mere procedural lapse should not result in the denial of due process, especially when the lapses did not prejudice the rights of the party involved.