Case Digest (G.R. No. 242722)
Facts:
Carlos Cereza, Roger Estolonillo, Raymundo Lopez, Yolanda Pascual, Merly Ann Montes, and May Ann Villa v. Hon. Danilo V. Suarez, Presiding Judge, Regional Trial Court of Paranaque City, Branch 259, and People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 242722, October 10, 2022, Supreme Court Second Division, Lopez, J., writing for the Court.Petitioners (collectively, Cereza, et al.) were charged by Information with violating Section 13, in relation to Section 11, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 for possession of one heat-sealed sachet of methamphetamine hydrochloride allegedly weighing 0.07 gram. They were arraigned on November 6, 2015 and pleaded not guilty. On July 5, 2018 they filed a Motion to Withdraw Plea relying on this Court’s decision in Estipona v. Hon. Lobrigo and sought to plea bargain to the lesser offense under Section 12 of R.A. No. 9165 pursuant to the Court’s Plea Bargaining Framework in Drugs Cases (A.M. No. 18-03-16-SC).
The trial prosecutor filed an opposition, and on August 15, 2018 the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 259, Paranaque City granted petitioners’ motion to withdraw their not-guilty plea but, applying Department of Justice Circular No. 027 (DOJ Circular No. 027), allowed them to plead guilty only to Section 11, paragraph 3 (possession where quantity is less than five grams) rather than Section 12. The RTC reasoned DOJ Circular No. 027—issued after A.M. No. 18-03-16-SC—permits plea bargaining for Section 13 to Section 11(3) where quantity is under five grams. Petitioners’ partial motion for reconsideration was denied on September 11, 2018.
Cereza, et al. brought an original petition for certiorari under Rule 65 alleging: (1) DOJ Circular No. 027 unlawfully encroaches on the Supreme Court’s rule-making power; (2) they are entitled to plea bargaining under A.M. No. 18-03-16-SC to Section 12; (3) the drug dependency assessment required by DOJ Circular No. 027 violates rights to privacy and against self-incrimination; and (4) the RTC committed gra...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Is DOJ Circular No. 027 unconstitutional for encroaching upon the Supreme Court’s rule‑making power?
- Are petitioners entitled to plea bargaining pursuant to A.M. No. 18-03-16-SC (the Court’s Plea Bargaining Framework in Drugs Cases)?
- Is the drug dependency assessment required by DOJ Circular No. 027 unconstitutional for violating the accused’s rights to privacy and against self-incrimination?
- Did the RTC commit grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction by allowing petitioners to plead guilty to Section 11(3) of R.A. No. 9165 instead of ...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)