Case Digest (G.R. No. 144222-24)
Facts:
Vicente Suarez Jr. y Banua v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 268672, December 04, 2023, Supreme Court Second Division, Lazaro‑Javier, J., writing for the Court.By Information dated May 27, 2019, Vicente Suarez Jr. y Banua (petitioner) was charged with violation of Article II, Section 5 of Republic Act No. 9165 (sale of dangerous drugs) for allegedly selling one sachet containing 2.1585 grams of methamphetamine hydrochloride on March 20, 2019. Petitioner initially pleaded not guilty on September 21, 2019.
On August 3, 2020, petitioner moved to enter a plea of guilty to the lesser offense of violation of Article II, Section 12 of RA 9165 (possession of paraphernalia). The People of the Philippines (respondent) opposed the motion, arguing the evidence supported conviction for illegal sale and contending that plea bargaining in drug cases required the approval of the public prosecutor and the arresting officers.
By Order dated September 14, 2020, Branch 15, Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Tabaco City granted petitioner’s motion; petitioner was rearraigned and, with counsel, pleaded guilty to Section 12. The RTC rendered judgment on October 1, 2020, convicting petitioner of Section 12 (indeterminate penalty of two to four years and a fine of P10,000) and imposing rehabilitative conditions. The RTC denied the prosecution’s motion for reconsideration on November 17, 2020.
Respondent filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA‑G.R. SP No. 167998, alleging grave abuse of discretion by the RTC for allowing a plea to a lesser offense without the prosecution’s concurrence and for permitting a plea to an offense not necessarily included in the information. On October 27, 2022, the CA granted the petition, nullified the RTC’s orders and decision, and remanded the case for continuation of proceedings on the original Section 5 charge. The CA denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration in a July 11, 2023 Resolution.
Petitioner filed this Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 seeking reversal of the CA dispositions. The Supreme Court’s factual record also includes the ...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Was the concurrence of the public prosecutor an indispensable prerequisite to the trial court’s acceptance of petitioner’s plea bargain to a lesser offense?
- Did the Plea Bargaining Framework in Drugs Cases allow plea bargaining for the offense charged given the quantity of methamphetamine (2.1585 grams) involved?
- Would remanding the case for trial on the original Section 5 charge violate petitioner’s constitutiona...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)