THE Sandiganbayan has approved the plea bargain proposal offered by private defendant Lucio Lapidez who is facing two charges of violation of RA 3019 or the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act as a co-accused of convicted former Butuan City mayor Leonides Plaza and six other former city officials.
In a seven-page resolution, the anti-graft court’s Third Division granted Lapidez’ request approve his amended plea bargain offer, which was not opposed by the prosecution.
Rather than stand trial for the graft charges, Lapidez said he is willing to plead guilty to frauds against the public treasury punishable under Article 213 of the Revised Penal Code.
He asked the court to only impose on him fines of P10,000 for each count and to dispense or waive the requirement for restitution of the amount of P4,369,629.90 involved in the procurement of liquid fertilizer from Feshan Philippines in April 2004.
In approving the plea bargain, the Sandiganbayan noted that it had already convicted Plaza on November 29, 2019 on both counts of graft, while co-defendants Salvador L. Satorre, Arthur Castro, Rodolfo B. Evanoso, Bebiano B. Calo, Danilo C. Furia, and Melita Loida T. Galbo were found guilty of one count of graft.
Prosecution evidence showed the transaction did not undergo the required public bidding thereby giving unwarranted benefits, advantage, and preference to Feshan, the chosen supplier.
Plaza was sentenced to six to ten years for each case or 12 to 20 years, while her co-defendants were each meted six to ten years imprisonment.
The former mayor was also ordered to pay the city government P4,603,716.25 by way of restitution.
In Lapidez’s case however, the court noted that plea bargaining is a recognized vital component of restorative justice which gives preference to a mutually satisfactory resolution of a case over a lengthy and protracted trial.
In a notification to the court dated March 2, 2023, the prosecution consented to the amended plea bargain offer and informed the court that its position was supported by Ombudsman Samuel Martires.
“It is important to emphasize that while a defendant has no constitutional right to plea bargain, the Court must defer to prosecutorial decisions with regard to whom to prosecute in relation to the giving of consent to plea bargaining proposals,” the Sandiganbayan said.
It pointed out that it is not in any position to compel the prosecution to continue pursuing prosecution of a defendant after it had already consented to the proposal to plea bargain to a lesser offense.
