Complaints Criminal Case Nos.
55155
Plaintiff,
-for-
-versus-
VIOLATION OF SECTION
Importer Tan 1401 (e) IN RELATION TO
Accused, SECTION 117 OF REPUBLIC
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - / ACT NO. 10863 OF THE
CUSTOMS MODERNIZATION
AND TARIFF ACT
MOTION TO PLEA BARGAIN
Accused through counsel most respectfully aver:
1. The two (2) accused are charged in the Information for the above-captioned
case for alleged violation of Section 1401 (e) in relation to Section 117 of
Republic Act No. 10863;
2. The pertinent provisions of the original charge against the two (2) accused
under RA 10863 state of the following:
“xxx Section 1401. Unlawful Importation or Exportation. – Any person who
shall fraudulently import or export or bring into or outside of the Philippines
any goods, or assist in so doing, contrary to law, or shall receive, conceal,
buy, sell, or in any manner facilitate the transportation, concealment, or sale
of such goods after importation, or shall commit technical smuggling as
defined in this Act shall be penalized by:
xxx
(e) Imprisonment of not less than six (6) years and one (1) day but not more
than twelve (12) years, or a fine of not less than one million five hundred
thousand pesos (P 1,500,000.00) but not more than fifteen million pesos
(P15,000,000.00), or both, if the appraised value of the goods unlawfully
imported, to be determined in the manner prescribed under this Act, including
duties and taxes, exceeds five million pesos (P5,000,000.00) but not more
than fifty million pesos (P50,000,000.00);
In relation to Sectio 117 of the same RA 10863, which states:
Section 117. Regulated Importation and Exportation. – Goods which are
subject to regulation shall be imported or exported only after securing the
necessary goods declaration or export declaration, clearances, licenses, and
any other requirements, prior to importation or exportation. In case of
importation, submission of requirements after arrival of the goods but prior to
release from customs custody shall be allowed but only in cases provided for
by governing laws or regulations. xxx”
3. However, the other offenses listed under the same Section 1401, specifically
from (a) to (d) and (f)(g)(h) are virtually similar and with the same elements as
with the offense under (e), the difference being that the imposable penalties
for the mentioned offenses vary as the subject offense is made to depend on
the appraised value of the goods unlawfully imported, to wit:
(a) Imprisonment of not less than thirty (30) days and one (1) day but not
more than six (6) months, or a fine of not less than twenty-five thousand
pesos (P25,000.00) but not more than seventy-five thousand pesos
(P75,000.00), or both, if the appraised value of the goods unlawfully imported,
to be determined in the manner prescribed under this Act, including duties
and taxes, of the goods unlawfully imported does not exceed two hundred fifty
thousand pesos (P250,000.00);
(b) Imprisonment of not less than six (6) months and one (1) day but not more
than one (1) year, or a fine of not less than seventy-five thousand pesos
(P75,000.00) but not more than one hundred fifty thousand pesos
(P150,000.00), or both, if the appraised value of the goods unlawfully
imported, to be determined in the manner prescribed under this Act, including
duties and taxes, exceeds two hundred fifty thousand pesos (P250,000.00)
but not more than five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00);
(c) Imprisonment of not less than one (1) year and one (1) day but not more
than three (3) years, or a fine of not less than one hundred fifty thousand
pesos (P150,000.00) but not more than three hundred thousand pesos
(P300,000.00) or both, if the appraised value of the goods unlawfully
imported, to be determined in the manner prescribed under this Act, including
duties and taxes, exceeds five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00) but
not more than one million pesos (P 1,000,000.00);
(d) Imprisonment of not less than three (3) years and one (1) day but not
more than six (6) years, or a fine of not less than three hundred thousand
pesos (P300,000.00) but not more than one million five hundred thousand
pesos (P 1,500,000.00), or both, if the appraised value of the goods
unlawfully imported, to be determined in the manner prescribed under this
Act, including duties and taxes, exceeds one million pesos (P1,000,000.00)
but not more than five million pesos (P5,000,0 00.00);
xxx
(f) Imprisonment of not less than twelve (12) years and one (1) day but not
more than twenty (20) years, or a fine of not less than fifteen mill-inn pesos
(P15,000,000.00) but not more than fifty million pesos (P50,000,000.00), or
both, if the appraised value of the goods unlawfully imported, to be
determined in the manner prescribed under this Act, including duties and
taxes, exceeds fifty million pesos (P50,000,000.00) but not more than two
hundred million pesos (P200,000,000.00);
(g) If the appraised value of the goods unlawfully imported to be determined
in the manner prescribed under this Act, including duties and taxes, exceeds
two hundred million pesos (P200,000,000.00) or if the aggregate amount of
the appraised value of the goods which are the subject of unlawful importation
committed in more than one instance, including duties and taxes, exceeds
two hundred million pesos (P200,000,000.00), the same shall be deemed as
a heinous crime and shall be punishable with a penalty of reclusion perpetua
and a fine of not less than fifty million pesos (P50,000,000.00);
4. With the foregoing, the two (2) accused most respectfully offers to plea
bargain with the State from the original charge of Section 1401 paragraph (e)
to the lower offense of Section 1401 paragraph (a) and for them to be meted
the penalty of Imprisonment of not less than thirty (30) days and one (1) day
but not more than six (6) months, or a fine of not less than twenty-five
thousand pesos (P25,000.00) but not more than seventy-five thousand pesos
(P75,000.00);
5. Such offer to plea bargain to the lesser offense is allowed as the lesser
offense is necessarily included in the original offense charged and thus
consistent with the mandates of jurisprudence:
“xxx Section 5, Rule 120 of the Rules of Court states when an offense
includes or is included in the other, to wit:
SEC. 5. When an offense includes or is included in another. — An offense
charged necessarily includes the offense proved when some of the
essential elements or ingredients of the former, as alleged in the complaint
or information, constitute the latter. And an offense charged is necessarily
included in the offense proved, when the essential ingredients of the
former constitute or form part of those constituting the latter.
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.
In this case, the allegations in the Informations filed against petitioner are
sufficient to hold petitioner liable for the lesser offenses. Thus, 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, with regard to the crime of Malversation of Public
Funds, while the Informations contain allegations which make out a case
for Malversation against petitioner, nevertheless, absent the element of
conversion, theoretically, petitioner may still be held liable for Failure to
Render Account by an Accountable Officer if it is shown that the failure to
render account was in violation of a law or regulation that requires him to
render such an accounting within the prescribed period.
Given, 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. xxx” (emphasis
supplied) (Daan vs Sandiganbayan G.R. Nos. 163972-77 March 28, 2008)
6. Plea bargaining has been defined in the stated case of Daan vs.
Sandiganbayan as:
“xxx 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.
Plea bargaining is authorized under Section 2, Rule 116 of the Revised
Rules of Criminal Procedure, to wit:
SEC. 2. Plea of guilty to a lesser offense. — At arraignment, the accused,
with the consent of the offended party and the prosecutor, may be
allowed by the trial court to plead guilty to a lesser offense which is
necessarily included in the offense charged. After arraignment but
before trial, the accused may still be allowed to plead guilty to said lesser
offense after withdrawing his plea of not guilty. No amendment of the
complaint or information is necessary. (sec. 4, cir. 38-98) xxx”
7. And the same has further been expounded in the landmark case of Estipona
vs. Hon. Frank Lobrigo1:
“xxx it is towards the provision of a simplified and inexpensive procedure
for the speedy disposition of cases in all courts that the rules on plea
bargaining was introduced. As a way of disposing criminal charges by
agreement of the parties, plea bargaining is considered to be an
"important," "essential," "highly desirable," and "legitimate" component of
the administration of justice. Some of its salutary effects include:
x x x For a defendant who sees slight possibility of acquittal, the
advantages of pleading guilty and limiting the probable penalty are
obvious - his exposure is reduced, the correctional processes can begin
immediately, and the practical burdens of a trial are eliminated. For the
State there are also advantages - the more promptly imposed punishment
after an admission of guilt may more effectively attain the objectives of
punishment; and with the avoidance of trial, scarce judicial and
prosecutorial resources are conserved for those cases in which there is a
substantial issue of the defendant's guilt or in which there is substantial
doubt that the State can sustain its burden of proof. (Brady v. United
States, 397 U.S. 742, 752 [1970])
Disposition of charges after plea discussions x x x leads to prompt and
largely final disposition of most criminal cases; it avoids much of the
corrosive impact of enforced idleness during pretrial confinement for
those who are denied release pending trial; it protects the public from
those accused persons who are prone to continue criminal conduct even
while on pretrial release; and, by shortening the time between charge and
disposition, it enhances whatever may be the rehabilitative prospects of
the guilty when they are ultimately imprisoned. (Santobello v. New York,
404 U.S. 257, 261 [1971])
The defendant avoids extended pretrial incarceration and the
anxieties and uncertainties of a trial; he gains a speedy disposition
1
G.R. No. 226679 August 15, 2017 citing CONSTITUTION, Art. VIII, Sec. 5(5). See also Neypes v. Court
of'Appea/s, 506 Phil. 613, 626 (2005) and San Ildefonso lines, Inc. v. CA, supra note 38, at 415-416; See
Corbitt v. New Jersey, 439 U.S. 212 (1978); Blackledge v. Allison, 431 U.S. 63 (l 977); and the Majority
Opinion and Mr. Justice Douglas' Concurring Opinion in Santobello v. New York, 404 U.S. 257 (1971);
People v. Villarama, Jr., 285 Phil. 723, 730 (1992), citing Black's Law Dictionary, 5th Ed., 1979, p. 103 7.
See also Gonzales Ill v. Office of the President of the Philippines, et al, 694 Phil. 52, 106 (2012); Atty.
Amante-Descallar v. Judge Ramas, 601 Phil. 21, 40 (2009); Daan v. Hon. Sandiganbayan, 573 Phil. 368,
375 (2008); and People v. Mamarion, supra note 37, at 75; Parker v. North Carolina, 397 U.S. 790 (1970);
Hughey v. United States, 495 U.S. 411 (1990); See Santobello v. New York, supra note 48 and Blackledge
v. Allison, supra note 48; Brady v. United States, 397 U.S. 742 (1970). (superscript omitted)
of his case, the chance to acknowledge his guilt, and a prompt start
in realizing whatever potential there may be for rehabilitation. Judges
and prosecutors conserve vital and scarce resources. The public is
protected from the risks posed by those charged with criminal offenses
who are at large on bail while awaiting completion of criminal proceedings.
(Blackledge v. Allison, 431 U.S. 63, 71 [1977])
In this jurisdiction, plea bargaining has been defined as "a process
whereby the accused and the prosecution work out a mutually satisfactory
disposition of the case subject to court approval." There is give-and-take
negotiation common in plea bargaining. The essence of the agreement is
that both the prosecution and the defense make concessions to avoid
potential losses. Properly administered, plea bargaining is to be
encouraged because the chief virtues of the system - speed,
economy, and finality - can benefit the accused, the offended party,
the prosecution, and the court.
Considering the presence of mutuality of advantage, the rules on plea
bargaining neither create a right nor take away a vested right. Instead, it
operates as a means to implement an existing right by regulating the
judicial process for enforcing rights and duties recognized by substantive
law and for justly administering remedy and redress for a disregard or
infraction of them. xxx”
8. Finally, there is no other provision under the same RA 10863 or in any other
related customs laws which prohibit the two (2) accused from being allowed
to plea bargain to the lesser offense, nor is there any showing in the
Information that the two (2) accused were charged as recidivists or habitual
delinquents;
PRAYER
WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is most respectfully prayed that
the Honorable Court allow the accused to enter into plea bargaining with the
State from the original charge of VIOLATION OF SECTION 1401 (e) IN
RELATION TO SECTION 117 OF REPUBLIC ACT NO. 10863 to the lesser
offense of Section 1401 (a) of the same Republic Act No. 10863 and be meted
the penalty corresponding to the lesser offense.
Other reliefs just and equitable are likewise prayed for;
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED. February 20, 2025. Zamboanga City,
Philippines.
NOTICE AND HEARING
Sir/Madame:
Please take notice that the undersigned submitted the foregoing motion to plea bargain
for the consideration and approval of the Honorable Court on February 25, 2025
