Case Digest (G.R. No. 127500)
Facts:
On February 25, 2016, in Roxas City, Glen Orda y Loyola, alias “Lapong” (petitioner), was apprehended in three separate buy-bust operations and charged with violations of Republic Act No. 9165: Criminal Case No. C-87-16 for unlawful sale of methamphetamine hydrochloride (Section 5, Article II); Criminal Case No. C-88-16 for possession of dangerous drugs (Section 11, Article II); and Criminal Case No. C-89-16 for possession of drug paraphernalia (Section 12, Article II). At arraignment, petitioner pleaded not guilty. During trial, he filed a written proposal to enter into plea bargaining under the Court-issued framework in A.M. No. 18-03-16-SC, offering to plead guilty to lesser offenses—Sections 12 and 15 of RA 9165—with corresponding reduced penalties and to undergo outpatient rehabilitation upon a finding of Methamphetamine Use Disorder, mild. The public prosecutor objected, invoking Department of Justice Circular No. 27 (2018) and the requirement under Section 2, Rule 116 ofCase Digest (G.R. No. 127500)
Facts:
- Parties and Procedural Posture
- Petitioner Glen Orda y Loyola was separately charged under Republic Act No. 9165 for:
- Criminal Case No. C-87-16 (Sale of 0.310g “shabu,” violation of Section 5, Article II)
- Criminal Case No. C-88-16 (Possession of 0.164g “shabu,” violation of Section 11, Article II)
- Criminal Case No. C-89-16 (Possession of drug paraphernalia, violation of Section 12, Article II)
- He pleaded not guilty at arraignment in Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 16, Roxas City.
- Plea Bargaining Proposal and Objection
- Pursuant to A.M. No. 18-03-16-SC, petitioner moved to plea bargain:
- In C-87-16 and C-88-16, to plead guilty to two counts of Section 12 (6 months–4 years, ₱10,000–₱50,000)
- In C-89-16, to plead guilty to Section 15 (6 months or drug treatment)
- He underwent a drug dependency evaluation diagnosing mild Methamphetamine Use Disorder and recommending outpatient rehabilitation.
- The People objected:
- Under DOJ Circular No. 27 (2018), Section 5 may only plea bargain to Section 11(3) (12–20 years, ₱300,000–₱400,000)
- Under Rule 116, Sec. 2 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure, the prosecutor’s consent is required for a plea to a lesser offense.
- Trial Court and Court of Appeals Decisions
- RTC Decision (Feb. 4, 2019) granted the plea bargains over the People’s objection, citing the Court’s rule-making power (Art. VIII, Sec. 5(5) Const.) and the public prosecutor as the State’s representative.
- RTC denied reconsideration (Feb. 22, 2019).
- Court of Appeals (Nov. 29, 2019) dismissed People’s certiorari petition, affirming RTC discretion.
- CA Amended Decision (July 21, 2021) granted reconsideration, held prosecutor’s consent indispensable, nullified RTC plea bargains, and ordered trial on original charges.
- Supreme Court Proceedings
- Petitioner filed a Rule 45 petition.
- DOJ issued Circular No. 18 (May 10, 2022), superseding Circular No. 27 and aligning with A.M. No. 18-03-16-SC.
- SC consolidated and decided Montierro and Baldadera (July 26, 2022), ruling that objections based solely on Circular No. 27 are withdrawn.
Issues:
- Does DOJ Circular No. 18’s repeal of Circular No. 27 withdraw the prosecutor’s objection to the plea bargain in Criminal Case No. C-87-16?
- Can a trial court grant plea bargains over the prosecutor’s objection under Rule 116, Sec. 2, subject only to its sound discretion?
- Did the Court of Appeals gravely abuse its discretion by nullifying the RTC’s plea bargains?
- What is the proper disposition of the plea bargain proposals in light of A.M. No. 18-03-16-SC and subsequent DOJ Circular No. 18?
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)