Title
Manuel Lopez Bason vs. People, represented by the Office of the Solicitor General
Case
G.R. No. 262664
Decision Date
Oct 3, 2023
Manuel Lopez Bason charged under RA 9165 for drug offenses proposed plea bargaining, opposed by prosecution. RTC approved, CA reversed, SC upheld RTC, citing procedural lapses and primacy of court's plea bargaining framework.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 262664)

Applicable Law and Charges

Bason was charged with:

  • Sale, delivery, and/or transportation of methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu) (Section 5, Article II, RA 9165); and
  • Possession and control of methamphetamine hydrochloride (Section 11, Article II, RA 9165).

Following trial, Bason proposed to plead guilty to two counts of violation of Section 12, Article II of RA 9165 (possession of paraphernalia). His plea bargaining proposal aimed to reduce the charges from Sections 5 and 11 to Section 12.

Procedural History and Plea Bargaining Proposal

The Office of the City Prosecutor (OCP) opposed Bason’s plea bargaining proposal on grounds that:

  1. The prosecution had rested its case with strong evidence against Bason;
  2. DOJ Department Circular No. 27 (2018) limited plea bargaining to certain offenses and did not allow it for Section 5 violations;
  3. The plea bargain would undermine the case’s thorough investigation; and
  4. Probable cause existed for multiple drug charges.

Despite protests, the RTC granted Bason’s plea bargaining proposal and allowed his change of plea to guilty on the lesser charges under Section 12, Article II of RA 9165, imposing penalties of imprisonment and fines. The prosecution’s motion for reconsideration was denied.

Court of Appeals Decision

The OSG filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 with the Court of Appeals (CA), arguing that the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion by approving the plea bargain without prosecution consent. The CA granted the petition, reversed, and set aside the RTC orders, directing the RTC to proceed with the trial expeditiously.

Issues on Appeal to the Supreme Court

  1. Whether the CA erred in ruling the RTC abused its discretion by granting the plea bargain over the prosecution's objection;
  2. Whether DOJ Department Circular No. 018 (2022), which revised plea bargaining guidelines, cures issues related to the lack of prosecution consent.

Supreme Court Ruling: Plea Bargaining Framework Takes Precedence

The Supreme Court held that its Plea Bargaining Framework in Drugs Cases, promulgated through A.M. No. 18-03-16-SC (2018), takes precedence over any DOJ Department Circulars, including Circular Nos. 27 and 018. The Court, citing People v. Montierro, recognized that DOJ Circular No. 018 now harmonizes prior inconsistencies and aligns with the Court framework, making objections based solely on DOJ Circular No. 27 moot.

Consent and Discretion of the Court in Plea Bargaining

While plea bargaining generally requires the consent of both parties, the Court clarified that the trial court has the sound discretion to approve or disapprove a plea bargain, independent of the prosecution's consent, provided the proposal complies with the Court's framework and the evidence. The trial court must evaluate:

  • The accused's character (e.g., whether the accused is a recidivist, habitual offender, drug addict, or troublemaker, or has previous charges or relapses); and
  • The strength of the evidence against the accused.

The presence of any disqualifying character traits bars plea bargaining eligibility.

Evaluation of Evidence and Character in the Instant Case

The RTC properly evaluated the evidence and found procedural lapses in the chain of custody of seized drugs, resulting in reasonable doubt as to Bason’s guilt. However, the Court found that the RTC did not evaluate Bason’s character to determine his eligibility for plea bargaining. As a result, the Supreme Court remanded the case to the RTC to conduct such evaluation before approving any plea bargain.

Drug Dependency Test Guidelines

The Court clarified that a drug dependency test is not a prerequisite for plea bargaining approval. Instead, it should be conducted only after the plea bargaining proposal is approved to determine whether the accused requires rehabilitation or counseling, as provided in the Court’s framework. The Car further noted that requiring a drug dependency test before plea bargaining would delay the disposition of cases and undermine the efficiency the mechanism intends to promote.

Clarificatory Guidelines on Drug Dependency Testing

  1. The drug dependency test is conducted post-approval of the plea bargain to decide if the accused needs treatment or counseling.
  2. If tested positive or admitting drug use, the accused is to undergo rehabilitation for at least six months, with this period credited as time served.
  3. If negative, the accused undergoes counseling and is credited accordingly.
  4. These procedures are consistent with Article VIII of RA 9165.

Summary: Trial Court's Duty and Role in Plea Bargaining

The Supreme Court emphasized that trial courts have a solemn duty to determine plea bargaining eligibility based on evidence strength and accused’s character. The Court’s framework provides a guide, ensuring a fair, speedy, and resource-efficient disposition consistent with constitutional guarantees. A drug dependency test supplements but does not condition the plea bargaining process.

Separate Concurring and Dissenting Opinion by Justice Kho, Jr.

Justice Kho concurred with the decision to remand and the rejection of the prosecution’s objection based on DOJ Circular No. 27 due to its revocation by Circular No. 018. He agreed that the trial court must determine Bason’s eligibility for plea bargaining considering both the character of the accused and strength of evide

    ...continue reading

    Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
    Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.

    About Privacy Terms