The SC also noted that, under the rules of the court, with the agreement of the offended and prosecutor party, the accused may be allowed to plead guilty to a minor offence. He noted that the word “may” means that the court has discretion if it allows the accused to commit a minor offence. He noted that, in Estipona Jr. v. Lobrigo, the Court held that the arguments relied on were within the exclusive domain of the SC. “Such an executive issue that runs counter to the regulatory power of the [SC] on the rules of pleading… including the adoption of the framework for the trial of oral arguments within the [RTC] is unconstitutional. Associate Judge Amy Lazaro-Javier agreed and said, “The DOJ simply used its right as the repressive arm of the state by announcing its own rules on pleading. John H. Langbein argues that the modern American advocacy system is comparable to the medieval European torture system: “The city prosecutor argued that they were bound by circular DOJ 27… “Any plea trial outside the DOJ circular is not acceptable,” he said.
When a plea is tried and accepted, the case is generally final and cannot be challenged. However, a defendant may withdraw his plea for certain legal reasons and a defendant may accept a “conditional” plea by pleading guilty and accepting a sentence, while reserving the right to appeal a particular case (for example. B, violation of a constitutional right). If the defendant does not win in the appeal proceedings, the agreement is executed; If the defendant succeeds on appeal, the good deal will be terminated. The accused in Doggett, United States, entered into such an agreement and reserved the right to appeal simply because he did not receive a speedy trial in accordance with the United States Constitution; Doggett`s assertion was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court and he was released. SB 492 is intended to amend the Pleasing Negotiation Provision (Section 23) of the Republic Act 9165 or the Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, which prohibits any offender from availing himself of such an agreement regardless of sanction. Even if the charges are more serious, prosecutors can still often bluff defence lawyers and their clients for a lesser offence.
As a result, people who could have been acquitted for lack of evidence, but also who are in fact truly innocent, will often plead guilty. What for? In a word, fear. And the more accusations, the more studies, the greater the fear. This explains why prosecutors sometimes appear to charge the accused.  In 2007, the Sakharam Bandekar case became the first case of its kind in India, in which the accused Sakharam Bandekar sought a lesser sentence in exchange for his confession (with pleas). However, the court rejected his plea and accepted the CBI`s argument that the accused faces serious corruption charges.  Finally, the court sentenced Bandekar to three years in prison.  Sometimes the prosecutor agrees to reduce the charge or drop some of the multiple charges in exchange for the accused`s acceptance of the sentence.