Sec.

6, Rule 1 of the Revised Rules of Court reads:

Sec. 6. Construction. These Rules shall be liberally construed in order to promote their
objective of securing just speedy and inexpensive disposition of every action and
proceeding.

LIBERAL CONSTRUCTION PRINCIPLE: The cases should be determined on the

merits in order to give the parties full opportunity to ventilate their causes and defenses,
rather than on technicalities or procedural imperfections. In that way, the ends of justice
would be served better. Rules of procedure are mere tools designed to expedite the
decision or resolution of cases and other matters pending in court. A strict and rigid
application of rules, resulting in technicalities that tend to frustrate rather than promote
substantial justice, must be avoided. In fact, Section 6 of Rule 1 states that the Rules
shall be liberally construed in order to promote their objective of ensuring
the just, speedy and inexpensive disposition of every action and
proceeding (DEVELOPMENT BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. FAMILY FOODS
MANUFACTURING CO. LTD. G.R. No. 180458, July 30, 2009, Third Division,
Nachura, J.).

Corollary to this, it is settled that liberal construction of the rules may be

invoked in situations where there may be some excusable formal deficiency or error in a
pleading, provided that the same does not subvert the essence of the proceeding and
connotes at least a reasonable attempt at compliance with the rules. After all, rules of
procedure are not to be applied in a very rigid, technical sense; they are used only to
help secure substantial justice (MEDISERV, INC. vs. COURT OF APPEALS, G.R. No.
161368, April 5, 2010, First Division, Villarama, Jr., J.)

Similarly, in a considerable host of cases has this prerogative been invoked to relax even
procedural rules of the most mandatory character in terms of compliance, such as the
period to appeal. Let us not forget that the rules of procedure should be viewed as mere
tools designed to facilitate the attainment of justice. Their strict and rigid application,
which would result in technicalities that tend to frustrate rather than promote
substantial justice, must always be avoided. Even the Rules of Court envision this
liberality. This power to suspend or even disregard the rules can be so pervasive and
encompassing so as to alter even that which this Court itself has already declared to be
final, as we are now compelled to do in this case. (De Guzman vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R.
No. 103276. April 11, 1996)

Clearly, when “transcendental matters” like life, liberty or State security are involved,
suspension of the rules is likely to be welcomed more generously. (De Guzman v
Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 103276. April 11, 1996)

Let us not forget that the rules of procedure should be viewed as mere tools designed to
facilitate the attainment of justice. Their strict and rigid application, which would result
in technicalities that tend to frustrate rather than promote substantial justice, must
always be avoided. Even the Rules of Court envision this liberality. (Aznar
III v. Bernad, 161 SCRA 276; Picson v. court of Appeals, 190 SCRA 31.)

This power to suspend or even disregard the rules can be so pervasive and
encompassing so as to alter even that which this Court itself has already declared to be
final, as we are now compelled to do in this case. And this is not without additional basis.
For in “Ronquillo v. Marasigan,”[29] (5 SCRA 204) the Court held that:

“The fact that the decision x x x has become final, does not preclude a modification or an
alteration thereof because even with the finality of judgment, when its execution
becomes impossible or unjust, as in the instant case, it may be modified or altered to
harmonize the same with justice and the facts.” (Italics supplied)
The Rules of Court was conceived and promulgated to set forth guidelines in the
dispensation of justice but not to bind and chain the hand that dispenses it, for
otherwise, courts will be mere slaves to or robots of technical rules, shorn of judicial
discretion. That is precisely why courts in rendering real justice have always been, as
they in fact ought to be, conscientiously guided by the norm that when on the balance,
technicalities take a backseat against substantive rights, and not the other way
around. Truly then, technicalities, in the appropriate language of Justice
Makalintal, “should give way to the realities of the situation.”[30] (Urbayan v. Caltex, 5
SCRA 1016; Economic Insurance Co. v. Uy Realty, 34 SCRA 749.)

And the grim reality petitioner will surely face, if we do not compassionately bend
backwards and flex technicalities in this instance, is the disgrace and misery of
incarceration for a crime which he might not have committed after all. More so,
considering that petitioner’s record as public servant remained unscathed until his
prosecution. Indeed, “while guilt shall not escape, innocence should not suffer.”[31]
(Suarez v. Platon, 69 Phil. 556)

In resume, this is a situation where a rigid application of rules of procedure must bow to
the overriding goal of courts of justice to render justice where justice is due - to secure to
every individual all possible legal means to prove his innocence of a crime of which he is
charged. To borrow Justice Padilla’ s words in “People v. CA, et al.,”[32] (G.R. No.
104709, March 7, 1995.) (where substantial justice was upheld anew in allowing therein
accused’s appeal despite the withdrawal of his notice of appeal and his subsequent
escape from confinement) that “if only to truly make the courts really genuine
instruments in the administration of justice,” the Court believes it imperative, in order
to assure against any possible miscarriage of justice resulting from petitioner’s failure to
present his crucial evidence through no fault of his, that this case be remanded to the
Sandiganbayan for reception and appreciation of petitioner’s evidence.

In Lescano vs. People, G.R. No. 214490, January 13, 2016:

We echo the same words with which we ended Holgado: (People v. Holgado, G.R. No.
207992, August 11, 2014, 732 SCRA 554)
It is lamentable that while our dockets are clogged with prosecutions under Republic Act
No. 9165 involving small-time drug users and retailers, we are seriously short of
prosecutions involving the proverbial "big fish." We are swamped with cases involving
small fry who have been arrested for miniscule amounts. While they are certainly a bane
to our society, small retailers are but low-lying fruits in an exceedingly vast network of
drug cartels. Both law enforcers and prosecutors should realize that the more effective
and efficient strategy is to focus resources more on the source and true leadership of
these nefarious organizations. Otherwise, all these executive and judicial resources
expended to attempt to convict an accused for 0.05 gram of shabu under doubtful
custodial arrangements will hardly make a dent in the overall picture. It might in fact be
distracting our law enforcers from their more challenging task: to uproot the causes of
this drug menace. We stand ready to assess cases involving greater amounts of drugs
and the leadership of these cartels.41 (G.R. No. 207992, August 11, 2014, 732 SCRA 554,
577)

Estipona vs. Lobrigo, G.R. No. 226679, August 15, 2017:

Yet a defendant has no constitutional right to plea bargain. No basic rights are
infringed by trying him rather than accepting a plea of guilty; the prosecutor need not
do so if he prefers to go to trial.56 Under the present Rules, the acceptance of an offer to
plead guilty is not a demandable right but depends on the consent of the offended
party57and the prosecutor, which is a condition precedent to a valid plea of guilty to a
lesser offense that is necessarily included in the offense charged.58 The reason for this
is that the prosecutor has full control of the prosecution of criminal actions; his duty is
to always prosecute the proper offense, not any lesser or graver one, based on what
the evidence on hand can sustain.59
In this jurisdiction, plea bargaining has been defined as "a process whereby the accused
and the prosecution work out a mutually satisfactory disposition of the case subject to
court approval."49 There is give-and-take negotiation common in plea bargaining.50 The
essence of the agreement is that both the prosecution and the defense make concessions
to avoid potential losses.51 Properly administered, plea bargaining is to be encouraged
because the chief virtues of the system - speed, economy, and finality - can benefit the
accused, the offended party, the prosecution, and the court.52

Considering the presence of mutuality of advantage,53 the rules on plea bargaining

neither create a right nor take away a vested right. Instead, it operates as a means to
implement an existing right by regulating the judicial process for enforcing rights and
duties recognized by substantive law and for justly administering remedy and redress
for a disregard or infraction of them.

The defendant avoids extended pretrial incarceration and the anxieties and
uncertainties of a trial; he gains a speedy disposition of his case, the chance to
acknowledge his guilt, and a prompt start in realizing whatever potential there may be
for rehabilitation. Judges and prosecutors conserve vital and scarce resources. The
public is protected from the risks posed by those charged with criminal offenses who are
at large on bail while awaiting completion of criminal proceedings. (Blackledge v.
Allison, 431 U.S. 63, 71 [1977])

Shabu worth P6.8 billion slips past Customs

Read more at https://www.philstar.com/headlines/2018/08/11/1841547/shabu-worth-
p68-billion-slips-past-customs#SUt2iPWE7pHd6Qgi.99

MANILA, Philippines — A ton of shabu could have already made its way into the
streets, according to Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) director general
Aaron Aquino.

Aquino made the statement yesterday after PDEA agents seized several magnetic
lifters at a warehouse in General Mariano Alvarez, Cavite.

The seized magnetic lifters were empty of drugs, Aquino said, but the method was
similar to what was used to smuggle P4.3 billion worth of shabu seized at the Port of
Manila earlier this week.

Aquino said an estimated P6.8 billion worth of shabu was contained in the seized
magnetic lifters in Cavite that were successfully smuggled and could already be
circulating in the streets.

He said dogs detected traces of illegal drugs in the empty magnetic lifters, similar to
the two seized at the Manila International Container Terminal (MICT) on Tuesday
which contained an estimated 500 kilograms of shabu.

Aquino expressed frustration with the Bureau of Customs and said the two incidents
showed there are corrupt personnel in the BOC who assist international drug
syndicates in smuggling.

Despite the intensified operations of the PDEA and Philippine National Police (PNP)
against drug trafficking, Aquino said the government is still hard-pressed to curb the
menace.
“We used to seize drugs by grams, but the drugs kept coming into the country by tons.
If this goes on, all our efforts in the PDEA and PNP are useless,” Aquino lamented.

Drug rings operating in the Golden Triangle in the shared borders of Laos, Myanmar
and Thailand are believed to be behind the multibillion-peso shabu shipments.

The shipment in Manila was sourced from Taiwan and used Malaysia as a
transshipment point before entering the country, PDEA said.

The shipment came into the country at the end of June and was dispatched to the
warehouse, rented at P150,000 per month for a year, by July 13.

Several men unloaded the illicit shipment on the night of July 15, taking three to four
hours to load the drugs into an estimated 17 luggage trolley bags.

Aquino said they are conducting backtracking investigation to identify more

perpetrators.

A certain Chao Yue Wah, alias KC Chan, Albert Chan or Tony Chan, is said to be a
liaison for the drug syndicate.

Meanwhile, the consignee for the P4.3-billion shabu shipment seized at the Manila
port has reported to the PDEA and said they are willing to submit themselves for
investigation.

Vedacio Cabral Baraquel, who reportedly owns Vecaba Trading International, a

business based in Sampaloc, Manila listed as the consignee for the shipment, and his
wife Baby claimed they were only used by the drug syndicate and were not directly
involved.

BOC spokesman Erastus Austria said it was unlikely Vecaba Trading imported other
shipments of illegal drugs and managed to have them released out of the ports guarded
by the BOC.

Austria said they have no prior records of importations made by the company.

“What we did with Vecaba Trading is that we checked the records and they have no
prior transaction with any port in the Philippines under the BOC. We used our
Management Information Systems Technology Group to check our records. Upon
verification of the data, it shows no prior transaction,” Austria said.

He added Vecaba is not even accredited with the BOC’s Accounts Management
Office, meaning “they have no personality to transact with the bureau.”

While the BOC could not control the items coming into the country, what they do is to
make sure the shipment goes through the proper Customs clearance process so they
could detect contraband, Austria said.

In the case of the 500 kilos of shabu, the BOC and the PDEA allowed these entry after
it received prior intelligence information that there were drugs concealed inside two
magnetic scrap lifters that were placed inside a container van.
The authorities planned on conducting a controlled delivery operation, but after 30
days when no one claimed the shipment they decided to seize the goods.

Austria said the BOC is conducting an investigation on the illegal shipment and
determining the Customs personnel involved in the importation of the illegal drugs.

Read more at https://www.philstar.com/headlines/2018/08/11/1841547/shabu-worth-

p68-billion-slips-past-customs#SUt2iPWE7pHd6Qgi.99