This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2012-09-04 |
PERLAS-BERNABE, J. |
||||
| Plea bargaining is allowable when the prosecution does not have sufficient evidence to establish the guilt of the accused of the crime charged.[74] However, if the basis for the allowance of a plea bargain in this case is the evidence on record, then it is significant to state that in its earlier Resolution[75] promulgated on January 7, 2010, the Sandiganbayan had evaluated the testimonies of twenty (20) prosecution witnesses and declared that "the conglomeration of evidence presented by the prosecution is viewed by the Court to be of strong character that militates against the grant of bail." | |||||
|
2008-03-28 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| counts of a multi-count indictment in return for a lighter sentence than that for the graver charge.[7] | |||||
|
2008-03-28 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| [13] the Court ruled that the acceptance of an offer to plead guilty to a lesser offense is not demandable by the accused as a matter of right but is a matter that is addressed entirely to the sound discretion of the trial court,[14] viz: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 v. 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 v. Parohinog (G.R. No. L-47462, February 28, 1980, 96 SCRA 373, 377), then Justice Antonio Barredo explained clearly and tersely the rationale or the law: | |||||