Case Digest (G.R. No. 250578)
Facts:
In Bert Pascua y Valdez v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 250578, decided September 07, 2020 under the 1987 Constitution, petitioner Bert Pascua was charged before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Balanga City, Bataan, Branch 1, in Criminal Case Nos. 18805 and 18806 with violations of Sections 5 and 11, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 for selling 0.024 gram and possessing 0.054 gram of methamphetamine hydrochloride, respectively. At arraignment, Pascua pleaded not guilty but subsequently moved to enter into a plea bargaining agreement, offering to plead guilty to the lesser offense under Section 12, Article II of RA 9165 (possession of drug paraphernalia). The prosecution opposed, invoking Department of Justice Circular No. 027-18 requiring State consent for plea bargains. On January 29, 2019, the RTC granted the plea in both cases but expressly declared Pascua “ineligible to apply for probation” in Case No. 18805. He applied for probation in Case No. 18806, and the RT...Case Digest (G.R. No. 250578)
Facts:
- Case Background
- Two Informations (Criminal Case Nos. 18805 & 18806) charged Bert Pascua y Valdez with:
- Selling 0.024 g of shabu (Section 5, Art. II, RA 9165)
- Possessing 0.054 g of shabu (Section 11, Art. II, RA 9165)
- Upon arraignment, Pascua pleaded not guilty but later moved to plea–bargain, offering to plead guilty to the lesser offense of possession of paraphernalia (Section 12, Art. II, RA 9165) in both cases.
- Regional Trial Court Proceedings
- Order dated January 29, 2019: RTC Branch 1 granted the plea bargain in both cases but expressly declared Pascua ineligible for probation in Criminal Case No. 18805.
- Order dated February 26, 2019: RTC directed investigation for probation in Criminal Case No. 18806 under the Probation Law (P.D. No. 968, as amended).
- Motion for reconsideration (filed February 4, 2019): Pascua argued that A.M. No. 18-03-16-SC disqualifies only those actually convicted of sale (Section 5), not those pleading to Section 12. RTC denied the motion for lack of merit, holding probation a discretionary privilege.
- Court of Appeals Proceedings
- Decision dated September 13, 2019: CA affirmed the RTC, construing the remark in A.M. No. 18-03-16-SC to disqualify persons charged under Section 5—even if convicted under Section 12—from probation, and held that probation remains within the court’s discretion.
- Resolution dated November 21, 2019: CA denied reconsideration, prompting Pascua’s petition to the Supreme Court.
Issues:
- Whether the Court of Appeals correctly ruled that the RTC did not gravely abuse its discretion in declaring Pascua ineligible for probation in Criminal Case No. 18805 after he pleaded guilty to Section 12, Article II of RA 9165.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)