Facts:

In the case of People of the Philippines vs. Darwin Reyes y Cabornay (G.R. No. 259728), the case arose from two Informations filed against the respondent, Darwin Reyes, on October 23, 2019, at Balanga City, Bataan, charging him with violations of the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002 (Republic Act No. 9165). The first charge, in Criminal Case No. 20215, accused Reyes of illegal possession of dangerous drugs under Section 11, Article II of RA 9165 for having two heat-sealed plastic sachets containing a total of 0.118 gram of methamphetamine hydrochloride, commonly known as shabu. The second charge, in Criminal Case No. 20216, involved selling the same substance weighing 0.066 gram in violation of Section 5, Article II of RA 9165.

Upon arraignment, the respondent pleaded "not guilty" to the charges. However, on November 15, 2019, during the hearing, he moved to plead guilty to a lesser offense of illegal possession of drug paraphernalia under Section 12, Article

...

Facts:

Background of the Case

• The People of the Philippines, represented by the Office of the Solicitor General, filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari challenging the decisions of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 164335.
• The petition challenges the CA decisions that annulled part of the Regional Trial Court’s (RTC) Order which declared Darwin Reyes y Cabornay ineligible to apply for probation.

Underlying Criminal Charges and Proceedings

• Two separate Informations were filed against respondent:
• Criminal Case No. 20215 – Charged with violation of Section 11, Article II of RA 9165 (illegal possession of dangerous drugs); accused was alleged to have in his possession two heat-sealed sachets containing 0.118 gram of shabu.
• Criminal Case No. 20216 – Charged with violation of Section 5, Article II of RA 9165 (illegal sale of dangerous drugs); accused was alleged to have sold, distributed, and given away one sachet containing 0.066 gram of shabu.
• Upon arraignment, the respondent pleaded “not guilty” to the charges.

Trial Court (RTC) Proceedings and Plea Bargaining

• On November 15, 2019, during trial, respondent moved in open court to plea guilty to a lesser offense in Criminal Case No. 20216, requesting a plea to a non-trafficking charge (i.e. illegal possession of drug paraphernalia under Section 12, Article II of RA 9165) instead of the originally charged illegal sale.
• The RTC granted the motion:
• Respondent was convicted of violating Section 12, Article II of RA 9165.
• He was sentenced to an indeterminate imprisonment ranging from six months and one day to three years, along with a fine of Php10,000.00 and provisions for subsidiary imprisonment.
• The Order explicitly stated that the respondent was ineligible to apply for probation.
• The respondent later filed a motion for reconsideration regarding his probation eligibility, which was denied by the RTC on November 26, 2019.

Court of Appeals (CA) Proceedings

• Respondent filed a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 with the CA based on the RTC’s denial of probation relief.
• The CA Decision dated June 28, 2021:
• Annulled the RTC’s Order dated November 26, 2019 that disqualified the respondent from applying for probation.
• Modified the earlier Order by deleting the sentence that barred probation.
• Provided the respondent a period of 15 days to file his application for probation.
• A subsequent Motion for Reconsideration filed by the respondent was denied by the CA Resolution dated March 10, 2022.

Plea Bargaining Process and Procedural Irregularities

• The respondent’s offer for plea bargaining was made orally in open court, rather than in a formal written motion as required by the relevant DOJ circulars and the Court’s guidelines.
• Initially, DOJ Circular No. 027 required a written motion; however, it was later effectively replaced by DOJ Circular No. 018.
• Although there was a procedural defect in the format of the plea bargaining offer, the Court noted that:
• The prosecution did not raise this defect in a timely manner.
• Several factors (late stage of the proceedings, judicial efficiency, and the principle of speedy disposition) warranted a liberal application of procedural rules.

Issue:

• Whether the CA erred in ruling that the respondent is eligible to apply for probation, despite his initial charge for illegal sale of dangerous drugs and subsequent conviction for the lesser offense of illegal possession of drug paraphernalia.
• Whether the procedural defect in the plea bargaining offer (i.e. not being in a formal written motion) should be considered fatal to the plea bargain and subsequent probation application.

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)