Practice question
An accused in an ordinary non-drug case proposes to plead guilty to an unrelated offense that is not necessarily included in the charge. He claims Rule 116, Section 2 alone authorizes this without amendment because everyone consents. Which is correct?
- Consent always overrides the text's necessary-inclusion requirement
- The specific Section 2 procedure does not authorize the unrelated substitute merely because the parties agree
- Every unrelated offense automatically becomes included
- No amendment is ever necessary for any conceivable new charge
- The accused may choose a civil infraction instead
Legal references
- https://lawphil.net/courts/rules/rc_110-127_crim.html — Rule 116 §§1–8 (arraignment, pleas, searching inquiry, counsel); Rule 115 §1.
- https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2025/feb2025/gr_263038_2025.html — Aguiling v. People, G.R. No. 263038, February 17, 2025, MAIN decision (plea bargaining in drug cases; judicial framework and objection based solely on inconsistent DOJ policy).
- https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2025/jan2025/gr_259094_2025.html — Aquino v. People, G.R. No. 259094, January 28, 2025, EN BANC MAIN decision (drug-case plea bargaining framework and objections).
Answer this question in flashcards to review your response and continue practicing.