G.R. No. 254564 - People vs. Montierro y Ventocilla

G.R. No. 254564: Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) petitions the Supreme Court to review the Court of Appeals’ dismissal of the OSG’s certiorari petition in Montierro’s case.
G.R. No. 254974: Cypher Baldadera y Pelagio petitions the Supreme Court to review the Court of Appeals’ grant of certiorari in his case.
Administrative matters: Letters from the Philippine Judges Association (PJA) and then–Court Administrator Jose Midas P. Marquez seek clarification on plea bargaining rulings in drug cases.

Montierro and Baldadera were charged in the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 24, Naga City, with violation of Section 5, Article II of RA 9165 for selling methamphetamine hydrochloride (“shabu”)—0.721 g in Montierro’s case (Crim. Case No. 2017-0082) and 0.048 g in Baldadera’s case (Crim. Case No. 2017-0210). Both pleaded not guilty after arraignment.
Plea-bargaining developments:

Estipona v. Lobrigo (Aug 2017): SC declared Sec. 23, RA 9165 unconstitutional, permitting plea bargaining in drug cases.
DOJ Circular No. 61 (Nov 2017): Prohibited plea bargaining for Sec. 5 offenses.
A.M. No. 18-03-16-SC (Apr 2018): SC Plea Bargaining Framework allowed Sec. 5 offenses (0.01-0.99 g shabu) to plead to Sec. 12 offenses.
DOJ Circular No. 27 (Jun 2018): Revised DOJ guidelines to permit Sec. 5 plea bargaining only to Sec. 11 offenses.

Both accused filed written motions to plead guilty to the lesser offense under Sec. 12 of RA 9165, citing the SC Framework.
The prosecution objected, invoking DOJ Circulars No. 61/27 and Regional Order 027-E-18.
In Orders dated June 27, 2018, the RTC: (a) granted both plea-bargain proposals; (b) declared DOJ Circulars No. 61/27 invalid as encroachments on SC rule-making; (c) entered pleas of guilty to Sec. 12.
Motions for reconsideration by the prosecution were denied; convictions under Sec. 12 were rendered in August 2018.

Montierro (CA-G.R. SP No. 158301): CA dismissed the OSG’s certiorari petition, upholding the RTC’s invalidation of DOJ Circular No. 27 and its plea-bargain grant.
Baldadera (CA-G.R. SP No. 158032): CA granted the OSG’s certiorari petition, finding the prosecution’s consent indispensable under Sec. 2, Rule 116, RRCrP, and remanded for trial.

SC consolidated G.R. Nos. 254564 & 254974 with A.M. No. 21-07-16-SC (PJA letter) and A.M. No. 18-03-16-SC (Marquez memo) to address plea-bargaining issues in drug cases.

Did the RTCs err in declaring DOJ Circulars 61 and 27 invalid for encroaching on the Supreme Court’s exclusive rule-making power?
Did the RTCs err in approving plea-bargaining proposals despite the prosecution’s continuing objections under DOJ Circular 27?
Is the requirement of mutual agreement (prosecutor and offended party) for a valid plea bargain inconsistent with RA 9165’s rehabilitative objectives for small-quantity drug offenders?
Is a drug dependency test a prerequisite for court approval of a plea-bargaining proposal?