Case Digest (G.R. No. 258894)
Facts:
Glen Orda y Loyola, G.R. No. 258894, January 30, 2023, the Supreme Court Second Division, Lazaro‑Javier, J., writing for the Court. Petitioner Glen Orda y Loyola (petitioner) was criminally charged in three informations for violations of Sections 5, 11 and 12, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 (the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002) arising from a single buy‑bust operation on February 25, 2016. The three cases were raffled to the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 16, Roxas City. On arraignment petitioner pleaded not guilty.During trial petitioner moved to enter plea bargaining pursuant to A.M. No. 18‑03‑16‑SC (the Court‑issued Plea Bargaining Framework in Drug Cases). For the Section 5 and Section 11 informations he proposed to plead guilty to Section 12 (possession of drug paraphernalia); for the Section 12 information he proposed to plead guilty to Section 15. He submitted to a drug dependency assessment that recommended outpatient rehabilitation. The provincial prosecutor objected to the proposals: in Criminal Case No. C‑87‑16 the objection rested on DOJ Circular No. 27 (2018) which limited permissible plea bargains for Section 5 offenses; in the other two cases the prosecutor maintained that Rule 116, Section 2 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure required the prosecutor’s consent to a plea to a lesser offense.
By Decision dated February 4, 2019 the RTC granted petitioner’s proposal and entered convictions on the lesser offenses, ordered confinement/rehabilitation as appropriate, credited time served and mandated turn over or disposition of exhibits. The People’s motion for reconsideration was denied on February 22, 2019.
The Office of the Solicitor General filed a petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals (CA) seeking nullification of the RTC dispositions. In a Decision dated November 29, 2019 the CA denied the petition and upheld the RTC, reasoning that plea bargaining is within the judge’s sound discretion under the Court’s plea bargaining framework. On the People’s motion for reconsideration, however, the CA issued an Amended Decision dated July 21, 2021 granting the petition and annulling the RTC Decision, holding that a plea of guilty to a lesser offense cannot be valid without the prosecutor’s conformity; it ordered the RTC to proceed to trial on the original charges.
Petitioner invoked Rule 45 review of the CA Amended Decision. While the present proceedings were pending, this Court in consolidated cases People v. Montierro and Baldadera v. People (G.R. Nos. 254564 and 254974, July 26, 2022) took judicial notice of DOJ Circular No. 18 (2022) which amended and harmo...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the Court of Appeals commit error in annulling the RTC Decision—i.e., did the RTC commit grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in granting petitioner’s plea bargaining proposals over the prosecutor’s objection?
- Is the prosecutor’s consent an indispensable precondition to a valid plea of guilty to a lesser offense, or may the trial court, in the exercise of sound discretion under A.M. No. 18‑03‑16‑SC, approve a plea bargaining proposal over the prosecutor’s objection?
- Does DOJ Circular No. 18 (2022) effectively withdraw objections premised on DOJ Circular No. 27 (2018) so that the prosecution’s objection to peti...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)