G.R. No. 268672 - Vicente Suarez Jr. y Banua vs. People

On May 27, 2019, Vicente Suarez Jr. y Banua was charged by Information (Crim. Case No. T-7583, RTC Tabaco City, Branch 15) with violation of Article II, Section 5 of RA 9165 for selling one sachet containing 2.1585 g of methamphetamine hydrochloride to a poseur buyer on March 20, 2019, along Ziga Avenue, Basud, Tabaco City.
On September 21, 2019, he pleaded not guilty to the original charge.

On August 3, 2020, petitioner moved to plead guilty to the lesser offense under Article II, Section 12 of RA 9165 (possession of drug paraphernalia). The People opposed, citing the absence of prosecutorial and arresting officers’ consent.
By Order dated September 14, 2020, the RTC granted the motion. Petitioner was rearraigned, pleaded guilty to the lesser offense, and the plea was entered into the records.
On October 1, 2020, the RTC rendered judgment convicting him of Section 12, imposing an indeterminate term of 2–4 years, a ₱10,000 fine, and probationary/rehabilitation conditions.
On November 17, 2020, the RTC denied the People’s motion for reconsideration.

The People filed CA-G.R. SP No. 167998, arguing grave abuse of discretion: (a) no prosecutor consent; (b) Section 12 is not necessarily included in the Section 5 offense. They sought remand to try the original charge.
On October 27, 2022, the CA granted the petition for certiorari, nullified the RTC’s plea and conviction, and remanded for continuation of trial on the original Section 5 charge.
On July 11, 2023, the CA denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration.

Petitioner filed a Rule 45 petition, urging reversal of the CA and affirmance of the RTC plea proceedings; he also invoked his right against double jeopardy.
On December 4, 2023, the SC rendered judgment.

Did the RTC commit grave abuse of discretion by allowing petitioner to plead guilty to a lesser offense without prosecutorial consent and when the lesser offense was not necessarily included in the original charge?
Is the CA’s remand for trial on the original Section 5 charge barred by the Double Jeopardy Clause given petitioner’s valid conviction for the lesser offense?