Title
Aguilar y Duron vs. People
Case
G.R. No. 257410
Decision Date
Aug 9, 2023
Aguilar sought plea bargaining for drug charges; RTC granted, CA nullified, SC remanded for eligibility evaluation under plea bargaining guidelines.
plea bargaining
nullification of decision
mutual agreement
A

Case Summary (G.R. No. 257410)

Charges Under R.A. No. 9165

On July 23, 2018, two Informations were filed against Aguilar before the RTC. In Criminal Case No. C-238-18, the Information charged violation of Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 for the sale and delivery of one heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet containing suspected shabu, marked “BB-EDA,” with a weight of 0.1510 grams of Methamphetamine Hydrochloride, to PO2 Mark Durana, acting as a police “poseur buyer,” for P1,000.00, without authority to sell and distribute the same. In Criminal Case No. C-239-18, the Information charged violation of Section 11, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 for possession, control, and custody of seven (7) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachets containing Methamphetamine Hydrochloride or shabu, each marked “P-EDA-2” through “P-EDA-8,” with a total weight of 0.7676 grams, without being authorized by law to possess them.

Arraignment and Aguilar’s Plea Bargaining Proposal

Aguilar was arraigned on September 9, 2018 and pleaded “not guilty.” During pre-trial, Aguilar manifested intent to file a motion for plea bargaining. Acting on this manifestation, he filed a Proposal for Plea Bargaining on August 9, 2018, invoking A.M. No. 18-03-16-SC. Under the proposal, Aguilar stated that he was willing to plead guilty to violation of Section 12, Article II of R.A. No. 9165, which carries an imprisonment range of six (6) months and one (1) day to four (4) years and a fine range of P10,000.00 to P50,000.00, with the trial court given discretion to impose a minimum and maximum period within the legal range or a straight penalty within six (6) months and one (1) day to one (1) year.

Prosecution’s Objection and the RTC Decision

On August 16, 2018, the prosecution filed its Comment/Objection to the proposal, registering an objection on the ground that the proposal was not consistent with the DOJ guidelines. Despite this objection, the RTC issued its Decision on December 11, 2018, granting the plea bargaining proposal. The RTC found Aguilar guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Section 12, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 in both cases and imposed fines of P10,000.00. In Criminal Case No. C-238-18, Aguilar was sentenced to imprisonment of six (6) months and one (1) day to three (3) years. In Criminal Case No. C-239-18, Aguilar was sentenced to imprisonment of six (6) months and one (1) day to one (1) year.

In granting the proposal, the RTC reasoned that Administrative Matter No. 18-03-16-SC allows plea bargaining for offenders charged with Sections 5 and 11 of Article II of R.A. No. 9165 involving less than one (1) gram and five (5) grams of shabu and marijuana, respectively. It further held that the plea bargaining framework prevailed over DOJ guidelines as the Court had adopted it in Estipona v. Lobrigo. The RTC also underscored that a drug dependency evaluation showed Aguilar was not a drug dependent, and thus did not need drug abuse treatment and rehabilitation.

Aggrieved, the People filed a Motion for Reconsideration, which the RTC denied in an Order dated January 25, 2019.

The People’s Petition for Certiorari Before the CA

On March 19, 2019, the People, through the Office of the Solicitor General, filed a Petition for Certiorari in the CA. The People alleged grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in the RTC’s grant of plea bargaining despite the prosecution’s objection. The principal arguments were that the prosecution’s consent was a condition precedent, that Estipona and A.M. No. 18-03-16-SC did not grant trial courts blanket authority to approve plea bargaining proposals despite objection, and that DOJ Circular No. 027 was consistent with the spirit of the Court’s framework.

CA Ruling Nullifying the Plea Bargaining Grant

On December 23, 2020, the CA granted the People’s petition for certiorari. It nullified and set aside the RTC’s December 11, 2018 Decision and January 25, 2019 Order, holding that the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. The CA ordered the RTC to continue proceedings in Criminal Case No. C-238-18 and to decide the case with dispatch.

The CA relied on Sayre v. Xenos. It treated plea bargaining as requiring the consent of the accused, the offended party, and the prosecutor, and it considered that when the prosecution objected, the RTC should have disapproved the plea bargaining proposal and proceeded to trial. In its May 27, 2021 Resolution, denying reconsideration, the CA also cited People v. Reafor, emphasizing that absent a mutual agreement to plea bargain, the proper course was the continuation of proceedings.

Aguilar’s Petition to the Supreme Court

On August 10, 2021, Aguilar filed the instant Petition for Review on Certiorari, assailing the CA’s ruling that nullified the RTC’s decision. The core issue was whether the CA erred in granting the People’s petition and setting aside the RTC’s grant of plea bargaining.

Legal Basis and Reasoning: The Controlling Doctrine in People v. Montierro

The Supreme Court held that the petition was meritorious, because the controversy had been squarely addressed in People v. Montierro. In Montierro, the Court explained that DOJ Circular No. 18 reconciled and removed any inconsistency between the Court’s plea bargaining framework in drugs cases and DOJ guidelines. As reflected in that reconciliation, the acceptable plea bargain for an offense under Section 5 of R.A. No. 9165 was Section 12 of the same law, aligning with the Court’s framework.

The Supreme Court reiterated that Montierro also prescribed specific guidelines governing plea bargaining in R.A. No. 9165 cases. The Court highlighted the relevant points that: plea bargaining offers must be initiated in writing by the accused; the lesser offense proposed must be necessarily included; the judge must order drug dependency assessment upon receipt of a compliant proposal; plea bargaining requires mutual agreement but remains subject to court approval and not demandable as of right; the court must not allow plea bargaining if validly supported grounds exist such as recidivism, habituality, being a known drug addict and troublemaker who had relapsed after rehabilitation, repeated charges, or strong evidence of guilt; and the trial court must hear and rule on the merits of the prosecution’s objection if invoked on those grounds.

The Supreme Court further reasoned that, pursuant to Montierro, the RTC properly overruled the prosecution’s objection because the DOJ’s present guidelines were already consistent with the Court’s plea bargaining framework in drugs cases. Thus, an objection based solely on supposed inconsistency with DOJ internal guidelines, when not aligned with the Court’s framework, did not justify denial of plea bargaining.

Remand for Determination of Eligibility Under the Montierro Guidelines

While the Supreme Court ruled that the CA’s basis for nullifying the plea bargaining grant was not consistent with the doctrine in Montierro, it still ordered a remand of the criminal cases to the RTC. The Court found that the records were bereft of any indication that the RTC conducted the required evaluation to determine whether Aguilar fell within circumstances that would qualify or disqualify him from plea bargaining under Montierro—specifically, whether he was a recidivist, habitual offender, known drug addict in the community with relapse after rehabilitation, or had been charged many times, or whether the evidence of guilt was strong.

Accordingly, Criminal Case No. C-238-18 and Criminal Case No. C-239-18 were remanded to the R

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.

About Privacy Terms