G.R. No. 168546 - Padua vs. People

Case Summary (G.R. No. 168546)

Factual Background

On or about June 6, 2003, Padua and co-accused Edgar Allan Ubalde allegedly sold to a police poseur-buyer one folded newsprint containing 4.86 grams of dried marijuana fruiting tops. An Information was filed June 16, 2003 charging both with violation of Section 5, Article II of RA 9165 (sale of dangerous drugs).

Plea, Conviction and Sentence

Padua was arraigned October 13, 2003 and initially pleaded not guilty. At pre-trial (February 2, 2004) his counsel withdrew the not-guilty plea and Padua pleaded guilty to avail of benefits for first-time minor offenders under Section 70 of RA 9165; the prosecutor did not object. The RTC (Decision of February 6, 2004) found Padua guilty of violating Section 5, Article II, RA 9165 and imposed an indeterminate sentence (minimum: six years and one day of prision mayor; maximum: seventeen years and four months of reclusion temporal) and a fine of P500,000.

Petition for Probation and Trial Court Procedure

Padua filed a petition for probation (February 10, 2004) asserting his status as a minor and first-time offender and claiming eligibility under P.D. No. 968 and Section 70 of RA 9165. The RTC ordered a post-sentence investigation and solicited the City Prosecutor’s comment. The Probation Office’s report recommended probation, relying in part on provisions of the Child and Welfare Code (P.D. 603).

RTC’s Denial of Probation and its Rationale

By Order dated May 11, 2004 (denial), the RTC rejected the recommendation and denied probation. The RTC reasoned that Section 70 (Article VIII) of RA 9165 addresses probation/community service in the program for treatment and rehabilitation and specifically contemplates violations of Sections 11 and 15; it does not mention violations of Section 5. More importantly, the RTC applied Section 24 of RA 9165, which provides that any person convicted for drug trafficking or pushing under the Act, regardless of penalty imposed, cannot avail of the Probation Law or P.D. No. 968. The RTC concluded that the statutory text is clear and that a person convicted under Section 5 (sale/trading of dangerous drugs) is categorically excluded from probation.

Proceedings Below — Court of Appeals

Padua filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 with the Court of Appeals challenging the RTC order. The CA, in a decision dated April 19, 2005, dismissed the petition for lack of merit. A motion for reconsideration was denied (June 14, 2005). Padua then brought the matter to the Supreme Court.

Issues Presented to the Supreme Court

The petition to the Supreme Court raised, principally: (1) whether the CA erred in affirming the denial of probation thereby depriving petitioner’s rights as a minor under A.M. No. 02-1-18-SC (Rule on Juveniles in Conflict with the Law); and (2) whether petitioner’s rights under RA 9344 (Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act of 2006) were violated — including whether Section 32 of A.M. No. 02-1-18-SC has application.

Standard for Certiorari and Jurisdictional Review

The Supreme Court reiterated the requisites for certiorari relief: (1) the writ must be directed against a tribunal or officer exercising judicial/quasi-judicial functions; (2) the tribunal/ officer must have acted without or in excess of jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack/excess of jurisdiction; and (3) there must be no adequate ordinary remedy. The Court found the RTC and CA did not act without jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion; they applied statutory provisions and principles of construction in denying probation.

Statutory Construction — RA 9165 Sections 24 and 70

The Court applied the plain-meaning (verba legis) rule: where statutory language is clear and unequivocal, it must be given literal effect. Section 24 of RA 9165 explicitly disbars “any person convicted for drug trafficking or pushing under this Act, regardless of the penalty imposed” from availing of the Probation Law. Section 70, by its terms and context in Article VIII, addresses probation/community service for first-time minor offenders but is tied to the program for treatment/rehabilitation and primarily contemplates violations of Sections 11 and 15 (possession and use). The Court agreed with lower courts that the legislative scheme treats users/possessors (victims) differently from traffickers/pushers (predators): the former are eligible for rehabilitative measures while the latter are expressly excluded from probation under Section 24. Had the legislature intended to exempt minors or first-time offender traffickers/pushers from Section 24, it could have done so expressly.

Juvenile Law (RA 9344) and A.M. No. 02-1-18-SC — Suspension o

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 168546)

Procedural Posture

Petition for review filed with the Supreme Court challenging: (a) the Court of Appeals Decision dated April 19, 2005 (CA-G.R. SP No. 86977) which dismissed Michael Padua’s petition for certiorari, and (b) the Court of Appeals Resolution dated June 14, 2005 which denied his motion for reconsideration. (Rollo, pp. 18-26.)
Underlying proceedings: Criminal case before the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 168, Pasig City charging Padua with violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 (sale of dangerous drugs). (Rollo, pp. 19, 27.)
RTC Orders dated May 11, 2004 and July 28, 2004 denied Padua’s petition for probation and denied his motion for reconsideration; Padua then filed certiorari with the Court of Appeals which dismissed his petition; he sought relief from the Supreme Court. (Rollo, pp. 34, 37-38, 23-24.)

Facts (as established in the record)

On or about June 6, 2003 in Pasig City, PO1 Roland A. Panis, a police poseur-buyer, allegedly received from Edgar Allan Ubalde and Michael Padua one folded newsprint containing 4.86 grams of dried marijuana fruiting tops, which tested positive for marijuana. (Rollo, p. 27.)
On June 16, 2003, Padua and Ubalde were charged before the RTC for violating Section 5, Article II of R.A. 9165 (sale of dangerous drugs). The Information alleges conspiracy and an unlawful sale to a poseur-buyer. Padua was described in the Information as a minor, seventeen (17) years old. (Rollo, pp. 19, 27.)
Arraignment: October 13, 2003 — Padua, assisted by counsel de oficio, pleaded not guilty. (Rollo, p. 29.)
Pre-trial: February 2, 2004 — Padua’s counsel manifested willingness to withdraw the not guilty plea and enter a plea of guilty to avail of first-time offender benefits under Section 70 of R.A. 9165; the prosecutor interposed no objection. The RTC on that date considered the not-guilty plea withdrawn and re-arraigned Padua, who pleaded guilty. (Rollo, pp. 19-20, 30.)
RTC Decision dated February 6, 2004 found Padua guilty and imposed an indeterminate sentence: six (6) years and one (1) day of Prision Mayor as minimum to seventeen (17) years and four (4) months of reclusion temporal as maximum, and a fine of Five Hundred Thousand Pesos (P500,000.00). No subsidiary imprisonment shall be imposed should the accused fail to pay the fine pursuant to Art. 39 par. 3 of the Revised Penal Code. (Rollo, pp. 31-32.)

Petition for Probation and Post-Sentence Investigation

Padua filed a Petition for Probation dated February 10, 2004, alleging he was a minor and a first-time offender seeking probation under Presidential Decree No. 968 (Probation Law) and Section 70 of R.A. 9165; he alleged he possessed the qualifications and lacked disqualifications for probation. (Rollo, p. 33.)
RTC Order dated February 10, 2004 directed the Probation Officer of Pasig City to conduct a Post-Sentence Investigation and to submit a report and recommendation within 60 days; the City Prosecutor was directed to comment within five days. (Rollo, p. 34.)
Post-Sentence Investigation Report submitted April 6, 2004 by Chief Probation and Parole Officer Josefina J. Pasana recommended placement on probation. The PSIR recommended probation anchoring that recommendation on Articles 189 and 192 of P.D. 603 (Child and Welfare Code) dealing with suspension of sentence and commitment of youthful offenders. (Rollo, pp. 22-26, 18.)

RTC Denial of Probation — Grounds and Orders

RTC Order dated May 11, 2004, penned by Presiding Judge Agnes Reyes-Carpio, denied the petition for probation.
- The RTC held that Articles 189 and 192 of P.D. 603 (Child and Welfare Code), which address suspension of sentence for youthful offenders, do not apply to an application for probation. (Rollo, pp. 37-38.)
- The RTC found Section 70 of R.A. 9165 is located under Article VIII (Program for Treatment and Rehabilitation of Drug Dependents) and specifically applies to violators of Sections 11 and 15 of the Act; violation of Section 5 (sale/trading) is not mentioned in Article VIII. (Rollo, p. 37.)
- Most critically, the RTC relied on Section 24 of R.A. 9165, holding that any person convicted for drug trafficking or pushing under the Act, regardless of the penalty imposed, cannot avail of the Probation Law or P.D. No. 968. The RTC emphasized the categorical bar of Section 24 and denied probation. (Rollo, pp. 37-38; Sec. 24 quoted.)
Padua’s motion for reconsideration was denied on July 28, 2004. (CA rollo, p. 34.)

Court of Appeals Proceedings and Disposition

Padua filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 with the Court of Appeals challenging the RTC order denying probation.
The Court of Appeals, in a Decision dated April 19, 2005 (penned by Associate Justice Remedios A. Salazar-Fernando, with Associate Justices Rosmari D. Carandang and Monina Arevalo-Zenarosa concurring), dismissed Padua’s petition for certiorari for lack of merit. (Rollo, pp. 18-24.)
Padua’s motion for reconsideration at the Court of Appeals was denied in a Resolution dated June 14, 2005. (Rollo, p. 26.)

Issues Presented to the Supreme Court

Padua raised the following principal issues before the Supreme Court:
- Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the denial of the petition for probation, thereby depriving Padua’s rights as a minor under Administrative Matter No. 02-1-18-SC (Rule on Juveniles in Conflict with the Law). (Rollo, p. 97.)
- Whether Padua’s right to be released under recognizance was violated in light of R.A. 9344 (Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act of 2006). (Rollo, p. 97.)
The Court summarized the operative legal questions as: (1) whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the certiorari petition; (2) whether Padua’s rights under R.A. 9344 were violated; and (3) whether Section 32 of A.M. No. 02-1-18-SC (Rule on Juveniles) applies in this case. (Rollo, pp. 55, 64.)

Government’s (OSG) Position in the Court Below

The Office of the Solicitor General adopted its Comment as its Memorandum and argued principally:
- The trial court and Court of Appeals correctly applied Section 24, Article II of R.A. 9165 rather than Section 70, Article VIII of the same law. (Rollo, pp. 48-71; id. at 55, 64.)
- Section 32 of A.M. No. 02-1-18-SC (Rule on Juveniles) has no application to the instant case. (Rollo, pp. 55, 64.)

Legal Standards for Certiorari (as Adopted by the Court)

The Supreme Court reiterated the requisites for a writ of certiorari:
- The writ must be directed against a tribunal, board or officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions.
- Such tribunal, board or officer must have acted without or in excess of jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.
- There must be no appeal or any plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. (Citing Madrigal Transport, Inc. v. Lapanday Holdings Corporation, G.R. No. 156067, Aug. 11, 2004, 436 SCRA 123, 133.) (Rollo, pp. 27-28.)
Definitions and explanations quoted/recited by the Court:
- “Without jurisdiction” means the court acted with absolute lack of authority.
- “
...continue reading