G.R. No. L-2708 - People vs. Acierto

Six accused—Carlos Cereza, Roger Estolonillo, Raymundo Lopez, Yolanda Pascual, Merly Ann Montes, and May Ann Villa—were charged with violating Section 13, in relation to Section 11 of R.A. No. 9165, for possessing a heat-sealed sachet marked “FB 10/13/15” containing 0.07 gram of methamphetamine hydrochloride.
The incident occurred on October 13, 2015, in ParaAaque City, Philippines, during a social gathering among approximately five persons.

On November 6, 2015, the accused were arraigned and entered a plea of “NOT GUILTY” to the charge.
Subsequent to the arraignment, on July 5, 2018, the accused filed a motion to withdraw their plea, invoking the jurisprudence established in Estipona v. Hon. Lobrigo.

The petitioners sought to change their plea to one for a lesser offense—specifically, to plead guilty to violation of Section 11, Paragraph 3 of R.A. No. 9165—under the plea bargaining framework provided by A.M. No. 18-03-16-SC.
They argued that even offenses punishable with life imprisonment, such as violations under Section 13, should be amenable to plea bargaining if analogous provisions exist for related offenses.
The Public Prosecutor filed a comment/opposition on August 7, 2018, which was later responded to by the petitioners on August 9, 2018.

On August 15, 2018, RTC, Branch 259 in ParaAaque City, issued an order granting the motion to withdraw the initial plea.
The order, based on DOJ Circular No. 027, allowed the accused to plead guilty to the lesser offense (Section 11, Paragraph 3) with a penalty ranging from 12 years, 1 day to 20 years imprisonment and a fine between P300,000.00 and P400,000.00.
The RTC reasoned that since a charge under Section 13 normally carries a harsher penalty (life imprisonment or death), the guidelines provided by DOJ Circular No. 027 offered a framework to convert the plea to a lower offense based on the quantity and purity of the drug involved.
A partial motion for reconsideration filed on August 22, 2018 was denied on September 11, 2018.

DOJ Circular No. 027 was issued to serve as an internal guideline for plea bargaining in drug cases. It set out parameters for allowing plea adjustments based on the quantity of drugs involved.
A.M. No. 18-03-16-SC provided the original plea bargaining framework and, later on June 4, 2019, was amended to include violations of Section 13, thereby expanding the spectrum of acceptable plea bargains.

The petitioners directly resorted to the Supreme Court via a petition for certiorari under Rule 65, challenging the RTC’s order granting the motion to withdraw the plea and its conversion to a lesser offense.
They asserted that the application of DOJ Circular No. 027 violated constitutional provisions by encroaching on the Supreme Court’s rule-making power and by mandating a drug dependency assessment that infringed on their right to privacy and protection against self-incrimination.
Additionally, the petition argued that the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion by allowing a plea to Section 11(3) instead of Section 12, which was allegedly more favorable to the petitioners.

Whether DOJ Circular No. 027 is unconstitutional for encroaching upon the Supreme Court’s inherent rule-making power.
Whether the petitioners, charged with the violation under Section 13 of R.A. No. 9165, are entitled to plea bargain under A.M. No. 18-03-16-SC.
Whether the mandatory drug dependency assessment imposed by DOJ Circular No. 027 violates the constitutional rights of the accused to privacy and against self-incrimination.
Whether the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion, amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, by allowing the accused to plead guilty to Section 11, Paragraph 3 instead of Section 12 of R.A. No. 9165.