Facts:
The consolidated cases arose from criminal informations filed in the Regional Trial Court, Naga City charging violations of
Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 against
Erick Montierro y Ventocilla (apprehended January 25, 2017 with an aggregate of 0.721 gram of methamphetamine hydrochloride) and
Cypher Baldadera y Pelagio (apprehended March 9, 2017 with 0.048 gram of methamphetamine hydrochloride). Both accused pleaded not guilty at arraignment and, following pre-trial, each filed a written proposal to plea bargain to the lesser offense of illegal possession of paraphernalia under
Section 12 of R.A. No. 9165 in reliance on the Court’s Plea Bargaining Framework for drugs cases promulgated in
A.M. No. 18-03-16-SC. The prosecution objected, invoking DOJ issuances—initially
DOJ Circular No. 61 and subsequently
DOJ Circular No. 27—which restricted plea bargains in Section 5 cases. The trial court in each case overruled the prosecutor’s objections, declared the DOJ circulars inconsistent with the Court’s rule-making authority, and accepted the accused’s pleas under Section 12, after which judgments of conviction were rendered. The Office of the Solicitor General sought relief in the Court of Appeals; the CA in Montierro’s case dismissed the petition while in Baldadera’s case it granted certiorari and set aside the RTC orders and judgment. The matters were consolidated and brought to the Supreme Court en banc, which took judicial notice of
DOJ Circular No. 18 (dated May 10, 2022) amending DOJ Circular No. 27 to conform with the Court’s Plea Bargaining Framework, and promulgated the present decision on July 26, 2022.
Issues:
Did the trial courts err in declaring DOJ Circular Nos. 61 and 27 invalid for allegedly encroaching upon the Court’s rule‑making power? Did the RTCs abuse their discretion in approving the accused’s plea bargaining proposals over the prosecution’s continuing objection grounded on DOJ Circular No. 27? Is the requirement of mutual agreement of the parties for a valid plea bargain inconsistent with the rehabilitative objectives of R.A. No. 9165 in cases involving small quantities of dangerous drugs? Is a drug dependency test a prerequisite to the approval of a plea bargain in drugs cases?
Ruling:
Ratio:
Doctrine: