Case Digest (G.R. No. 93262)
Facts:
On March 10, 2017, in Naga City, the respondent Naci Borras y Lascano was charged by information with (a) the illegal sale of one small sachet of methamphetamine hydrochloride (“shabu”) in Criminal Case No. 2017-0358, in violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, as amended by RA 10640; and (b) the possession of three sachets of shabu weighing a total of 0.165 gram in Criminal Case No. 2017-0359, in violation of Section 11, Article II of the same Act. He pleaded not guilty at arraignment and trial commenced. After this Court’s declaration in Estipona v. Lobrigo (August 15, 2017) that Section 23 of RA 9165 barring plea bargaining was unconstitutional, the Department of Justice issued Circulars No. 061-17 (November 21, 2017) and No. 027-18 (June 26, 2018), prescribing guidelines for plea bargaining under RA 9165. On May 28, 2018, while the prosecution was presenting evidence, respondent moved to withdraw his not-guilty plea and plead guilty to two counts of illeg...Case Digest (G.R. No. 93262)
Facts:
- Information and Charges
- On March 10, 2017, in Naga City, respondent Naci Borras y Lascano was charged under RA 9165, as amended by RA 10640, in:
- Crim. Case No. 2017-0358 for the illegal sale of one sachet (0.032 g) of methamphetamine hydrochloride (“shabu”) to a poseur buyer.
- Crim. Case No. 2017-0359 for the possession of three sachets (aggregate 0.165 g) of “shabu.”
- At arraignment, respondent pleaded not guilty to both counts.
- Plea-Bargaining Framework and Proceedings
- Estipona v. Lobrigo (Aug. 15, 2017) declared RA 9165 § 23 (barring plea bargaining) unconstitutional. DOJ issued Circular 061-17 (Nov. 21, 2017) setting guidelines on plea deals; SC promulgated A.M. No. 18-03-16-SC (Apr. 12, 2018) adopting a plea-bargaining framework; DOJ issued RPO Order 027-E-18 reaffirming Circular 061-17.
- On May 28, 2018, after the People presented evidence, respondent moved to withdraw his not-guilty plea and plead guilty to two counts under § 12 (possession of drug paraphernalia). The prosecution objected, citing DOJ Circular 061-17’s prohibition of plea bargains for Section 5 and procedural requirements. DOJ then issued Circular 027-18 (June 26, 2018) allowing limited plea bargains.
- Trial Court, CA and SC Actions
- RTC Branch 61 granted the plea-bargain motion, motu proprio declared DOJ Circulars 061-17 and 027-18 unconstitutional for usurping SC rule-making power, re-arraigned respondent, accepted his guilty plea under § 12, and sentenced him to:
- 3–4 years’ imprisonment + ₱30,000 fine (first count).
- 2–3 years’ imprisonment + ₱20,000 fine (second count).
- The People filed a certiorari petition with the CA. CA denied relief, affirmed the conviction but deleted the portions invalidating DOJ issuances.
- The People elevated the case to the Supreme Court, contending that prosecutorial consent is indispensable to a valid plea bargain.
Issues:
- Whether the consent of the prosecutor is indispensable to a valid plea bargain in dangerous-drugs cases.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)