Access over 20 million homework & study documents

A STUDY ON EFFECTIVENESS OF EMPLOYEES SAFETY AND HEALTH AT RANE MADRAS LIMITED

Content type
User Generated
Type
Study Guide
Rating
Showing Page:
1/5
Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
FIRST DIVISION
G.R. No. 99287 June 23, 1992
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner,
vs.
HON. MARTIN S. VILLARAMA, JR., AND JAIME MANUEL, respondents.
MEDIALDEA, J.:
This petition for certiorari seeks to reverse the decision and the order of the Regional Trial Court, National Capital
Region at Pasig, Metro Manila dated February 25 and March 13, 1991, respectively in Criminal Case No. 1345-D
entitled "People of the Philippines v. Jaime Manuel y Ohide" for violation of Section 16, Article 111, RA 6425, as
amended.
Briefly, the antecedent facts of the case are as follows:
On August 24, 1990, Jaime Manuel y Ohide was charged with violation of Section 16, Republic Act No. 6425, as
amended. The penalty prescribed in the said section is imprisonment ranging from six years and one day to twelve
years and a fine ranging from six thousand to twelve thousand pesos. The information against him reads:
That on or about the 21st day of August, 1990, in the Municipality of San Juan, Metro Manila,
Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, without
the corresponding license or prescription did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have
in his possession, custody and control 0.08 grams of Methamphetamin Hydrocloride (Shabu)
wrapped with an aluminum foil, which is a regulated drug.
CONTRARY TO LAW. (p. 15, Rollo)
During the arraignment, the accused entered a plea of not guilty. Thereafter, trial ensued. On November 21, 1990,
the prosecution rested its case. On January 9, 1991, counsel for private respondent verbally manifested in open
court that private respondent was willing to change his former plea of "not guilty" to that of "guilty" to the lesser
offense of violation of Section 17, R.A. No. 6425, as amended. The said section provides a penalty of imprisonment
ranging from six months and one day to four years and a fine ranging from six hundred to four thousand pesos shall
be imposed upon any pharmacist, physician, dentist, veterinarian, manufacturer, wholesaler who violates or fails to
keep the records required under Section 25 of the Act; if the violation or failure involves a regulated drug. That same
day, the respondent Judge issued an order (Annex "B," p. 17, Rollo) directing private respondent to secure the
consent of the prosecutor to the change of plea, and set the promulgation of decision on January 30, 1991. On
January 30, 1991, respondent Judge postponed the promulgation of the decision to February 18, 1991 to give
private respondent another opportunity to secure the consent of the prosecutor. Also, on the said date, the private
respondent filed his Request to Plead Guilty to a Lesser Offense. On February 18, 1991, respondent Judge issued
another order (Annex "D," p. 19, Rollo) postponing the promulgation of decision to February 25, 1991 to give private
respondent further opportunity to secure the consent of the prosecutor. On February 20, 1991, the prosecutor filed
his Opposition to the Request to Plead Guilty to a Lesser Offense (annex "E," p. 20, Rollo) on the grounds that: (1)
the prosecution already rested its case on November 21, 1990; (2) the possibility of conviction of private respondent
of the crime originally charged was high because of the strong evidence of the prosecution; and (3) the valuable
time which the court and the prosecutor had expended would be put to waste. On February 21, 1991, private
respondent filed his Reply to Opposition with Leave of Court to Plead Guilty to a Lesser Offense (annex F, p.
21, Rollo), alleging therein, among other matters, that the Rules on Criminal Procedure does not fix a specific period

Sign up to view the full document!

lock_open Sign Up
Showing Page:
2/5
within which an accused is allowed to plead guilty to a lesser offense. Subsequently, on February 25, 1991,
respondent Judge rendered a decision granting the accused's motion, to wit:
It may well be appropriate at this time to state that the accused is not availing of the "voluntary plea
of guilt" as a mitigating circumstance envisioned under Article 13, paragraph 7 of the Revised Penal
Code. The accused simply wants to avail of Section 2, Rule 116 of the Rules. As pointed out by Atty.
Fernando Fernandez of the PAO, there is nothing in the said provision which requires that the same
be availed of prior to the presentation of the evidence for the prosecution. It is conceded though, as
pointed out by the prosecution, that such is a waste of time on the part of the Office of the Provincial
Prosecutor and of the Court, nonetheless, this Court, having in mind Section 2 of Rule 1 which
provides that the rules shall be liberally construed in order to promote their object and to assist the
parties in obtaining just, speedy and inexpensive determination of every action and proceeding and
also for humanitarian considerations, hereby APPROVES and GRANTS the Motion at bar.
Moreover, such an admission of guilt by the accused indicates his submission to the law and a moral
disposition on his part to reform. (Vide: People vs. Coronel, G.R. No. L-19091, June 30, 1966)
Let it be made of record however that the Court is not putting a premium on the change of heart of
the accused in mid-stream.
WHEREFORE, finding the accused JAIME MANUEL Y CHIDE @ Manny guilty beyond reasonable-
doubt of the crime of violation of Section 17, Article III, Republic Act No. 6425, as amended, he is
hereby sentenced to a straight prison term of two (2) years and one (1) day of prision correccional,
to pay a fine of Two Thousand Pesos (P2,000.00) with subsidiary imprisonment in case of
insolvency and to pay the costs.
In the service of his sentence, the accused shall be credited in full with the period of his preventive
imprisonment.
Pursuant to Section 20, Article IV of Republic Act No. 6425, as amended, let the 0.08 grams of
methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu) subject matter of this case be confiscated and forfeited in
favor of the Government and be turned over to the Dangerous Drugs Board Custodian, NBI, to be
disposed of according to law.
SO ORDERED. (Rollo, pp. 24-25)
Forthwith, the prosecutor filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the aforestated decision but the same was denied in
the order of March 13, 1991, which states:
It is the considered view of this Court that Section 2, Rule 116 of the Rules should not be interpreted
to the letter in "victimless crimes" such as this case, possession of regulated drugs, which is more of
a "social disease" case so to speak and in the light of (the) provision itself that "with the consent of
the offended party and the fiscal." Is the fiscal the offended party?
Moreover as the records show, the Office of the Provincial Fiscal has not been very consistent on
this "lesser offense plea" thing. It would perhaps be in consonance with justice that a guideline be
laid down by the said Office, if only to apprise the public, the Court and the accused on when said
consent is to be given by the fiscal as a matter of course and when it will be withheld. For to leave
the same undefined is in the mind of this Court, not conducive to a "just, speedy and inexpensive
determination of every action and proceeding.
SO ORDERED. (Rollo, pp. 41-42)
Hence, this petition raising the following issues:
I. WHETHER OR NOT RESPONDENT JUDGE ERRED IN GRANTING PRIVATE RESPONDENT'S
REQUEST TO PLEAD GUILTY TO A LESSER OFFENSE BECAUSE THE REQUEST WAS FILED

Sign up to view the full document!

lock_open Sign Up
Showing Page:
3/5

Sign up to view the full document!

lock_open Sign Up
End of Preview - Want to read all 5 pages?
Access Now
Unformatted Attachment Preview
Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila FIRST DIVISION   G.R. No. 99287 June 23, 1992 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner,  vs. HON. MARTIN S. VILLARAMA, JR., AND JAIME MANUEL, respondents.   MEDIALDEA, J.: This petition for certiorari seeks to reverse the decision and the order of the Regional Trial Court, National Capital Region at Pasig, Metro Manila dated February 25 and March 13, 1991, respectively in Criminal Case No. 1345-D entitled "People of the Philippines v. Jaime Manuel y Ohide" for violation of Section 16, Article 111, RA 6425, as amended. Briefly, the antecedent facts of the case are as follows: On August 24, 1990, Jaime Manuel y Ohide was charged with violation of Section 16, Republic Act No. 6425, as amended. The penalty prescribed in the said section is imprisonment ranging from six years and one day to twelve years and a fine ranging from six thousand to twelve thousand pesos. The information against him reads: That on or about the 21st day of August, 1990, in the Municipality of San Juan, Metro Manila, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, without the corresponding license or prescription did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have in his possession, custody and control 0.08 grams of Methamphetamin Hydrocloride (Shabu) wrapped with an aluminum foil, which is a regulated drug. CONTRARY TO LAW. (p. 15, Rollo) During the arraignment, the accused entered a plea of no ...
Purchase document to see full attachment
User generated content is uploaded by users for the purposes of learning and should be used following Studypool's honor code & terms of service.

Anonymous
I was having a hard time with this subject, and this was a great help.

Studypool
4.7
Trustpilot
4.5
Sitejabber
4.4