Case Digest (G.R. No. 257410)
Facts:
On July 23, 2018, Aguilar was charged before the RTC of Roxas City, Capiz, Branch 16 in Criminal Case Nos. C-238-18 and C-239-18 for violations of Sections 5 and 11, Article II of R.A. No. 9165. After arraignment on September 9, 2018, he filed a written Proposal for Plea Bargaining and the prosecution objected, citing inconsistency with DOJ guidelines.On December 11, 2018, the RTC granted the plea bargaining proposal over the prosecution’s objection. The CA later nullified the RTC decision and order for grave abuse of discretion, holding that the prosecution’s objection should have prevented the plea bargaining, and Aguilar’s motion for reconsideration was denied.
Issues:
- Whether the RTC gravely abused its discretion in granting Aguilar’s plea bargaining proposal despite the prosecution’s objection.
- Whether the cases should be remanded to the RTC for further evaluation under the proper plea bargaining guidelines.
Ruling:
The Supreme Court set aside the CA decision and res Case Digest (G.R. No. 257410)
Facts:
- Parties and procedural posture
- Edwin Aguilar y Duron (Aguilar) filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari dated August 10, 2021.
- The petition assailed the Decision dated December 23, 2020 and the Resolution dated May 27, 2021 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 12611.
- The CA nullified and set aside the Decision dated December 11, 2018 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Roxas City, Capiz, Branch 16.
- Filing of criminal charges
- On July 23, 2018, two Informations were filed against Aguilar for violation of Sections 5 and 11, Article II of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9165.
- The cases were docketed as Criminal Case Nos. C-238-18 and C-239-18.
- Contents of the Information in Criminal Case No. C-238-18 (Section 5)
- The Information charged Aguilar with violation of Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165.
- It alleged that on or about July 6, 2018, in Roxas City and within the RTC’s jurisdiction, Aguilar sold and delivered to PO2 Mark Durana, described as a police “poseur buyer.”
- It alleged delivery of one (1) piece of heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance of suspected “shabu,” marked “BB-EDA,” with weight 0.1510 grams of Methamphetamine Hydrochloride.
- It alleged consideration of One Thousand Pesos (P1,000.00) Philippine Currency.
- It alleged the sale and delivery were without authority to sell and distribute.
- Contents of the Information in Criminal Case No. C-239-18 (Section 11)
- The Information charged Aguilar with violation of Section 11, Article II of R.A. No. 9165.
- It alleged that on or about July 6, 2018, in Roxas City and within the RTC’s jurisdiction, Aguilar had in possession, control and custody seven (7) pieces of heat-sealed transparent plastic sachets containing Methamphetamine Hydrochloride or shabu.
- It alleged the sachets were marked “P-EDA-2,” “P-EDA-3,” “P-EDA-4,” “P-EDA-5,” “P-EDA-6,” “P-EDA-7,” and “P-EDA-8.”
- It alleged the weights per sachet as: 0.0235 grams; 0.0151 grams; 0.0228 grams; 0.0428 grams; 0.3381 grams; 0.1477 grams; and 0.1776 grams.
- It alleged a total weight of 0.7676 grams.
- It alleged the possession was without authorization by law.
- Arraignment and intent to plea bargain
- Upon arraignment on September 9, 2018, Aguilar pleaded “not guilty.”
- During pre-trial, Aguilar manifested intent to file a motion for plea bargaining.
- Proposal for plea bargaining and prosecution objection
- On August 9, 2018, Aguilar filed his Proposal for Plea Bargaining.
- The proposal stated that Aguilar was charged with violations of Sections 5 (C-239-18) and 11 (C-240-18), Article II of R.A. 9165, and pleaded not guilty during arraignment.
- The proposal stated Aguilar intended to avail of plea bargaining under A.M. No. 18-03-16-SC (Adoption of the Plea Bargaining Framework in Drugs Cases).
- The proposal asserted that, in the referenced cases, Aguilar was willing to plead guilty to Section 12 of R.A. 9165, with penalty range imprisonment of 6 months and 1 day to 4 years and fine P10,000.00 to P50,000.00, and that the court may impose minimum and maximum periods from the range or impose a straight penalty within specified bounds.
- On August 16, 2018, the prosecution filed a Comment/Objection (To Proposal for Plea Bargaining).
- The prosecution objected because the proposal was allegedly not consistent with the guidelines issued by the DOJ.
- RTC disposition granting plea bargaining despite objection
- On December 11, 2018, the RTC rendered its Decision granting Aguilar’s proposal for plea bargaining.
- In Criminal Case No. C-238-18, the RTC found Aguilar guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Section 12, Article II of R.A. 9165, and sentenced him to imprisonment of six (6) months and one (1) day to three (3) years, plus a fine of P10,000.00.
- In Criminal Case No. C-239-18, the RTC found Aguilar guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Section 12, Article II of R.A. 9165, and sentenced him to imprisonment of six (6) months and one (1) day to one (1) year, plus a fine of P10,000.00.
- The RTC reasoned that under A.M. No. 18-03-16-SC, an accused charged with Sections 5 and 11 involving less than one (1) and five (5) grams of shabu or marijuana, respectively, could plea bargain to Section 12, with an imposable penalty of six (6) months and one (1) day to four (4) years and a fine range P10,000.00 to P50,000.00; it further noted that a straight penalty within six (6) months and one (1) day to one (1) year may also be imposed.
- The RTC concluded that the total weight of the shabu in the case qualified Aguilar to avail of the benefits under A.M. No. 18-03-16-SC.
- The RTC held that A.M. No. 18-03-16-SC prevailed over DOJ guidelines because of its adoption by the Court in Estipona v. Lobrigo.
- The RTC also underscored that a drug dependency evaluation showed that Aguilar was not a drug dependent, and therefore did not need drug abuse treatment and rehabilitation.
- Denial of prosecution’s motion for reconsideration by RTC
- The prosecution filed a Motion for Reconsideration.
- The RTC denied the motion in an Order dated January 25, 2019.
- CA proceedings and reversal through certiorari
- On March 19, 2019, the People of the Philippines (People), through the Office of the Solicitor General, filed a Petition for Certiorari.
- The petition alleged grave abuse of discretion by the RTC for granting plea bargaining over the prosecution’s objection.
- The People’s grounds included:...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Whether the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion in granting Aguilar’s plea bargaining proposal over the prosecution’s objection
- Whether prosecution consent was a condition precedent for the trial court to grant plea bargaining.
- Whether Estipona and A.M. No. 18-03-16-SC authorized plea bargaining in the presence of a prosecution objection, and whether the RTC had authority to grant plea bargaining notwithstanding such objection.
- Whether DOJ Circular No. 027 controlled or remained consistent with the Court’s framework after Estipona and A.M. No. 18-03-16-SC.
- Whether the CA correctly relied on Sayre v. Xenos and People v. Reafor to require prosecution consent and continuation of proceedings where there was no mu...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)