Case Summary (G.R. No. 164561)
Facts and Charges
On March 10, 2017 respondent was charged by informations with: (a) illegal sale of methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu) in violation of Section 5, Article II of R.A. 9165 (Criminal Case No. 2017-0358), based on a heat-sealed sachet weighing 0.032 gram allegedly sold to a poseur buyer; and (b) illegal possession of methamphetamine hydrochloride in violation of Section 11, Article II of R.A. 9165 (Criminal Case No. 2017-0359), based on three sachets with aggregate weight 0.165 gram. At arraignment respondent pleaded not guilty; trial commenced.
Plea-bargaining Developments and Relevant Issuances
After Estipona v. Lobrigo (which declared Section 23 of RA 9165 unconstitutional for infringing the Supreme Court’s rule-making authority), the DOJ issued Department Circular No. 061-17 (Nov. 21, 2017) setting guidelines on plea bargaining for drug offenses. The Supreme Court adopted a plea-bargaining framework in A.M. No. 18-03-16-SC (April 2018). The DOJ later issued Regional Prosecution Office Order No. 027-E-18 (May 17, 2018) and Department Circular No. 027-18 (June 26, 2018), which amended earlier DOJ guidance and specified when plea bargaining may be acceptable for particular drug offenses and quantity thresholds. The DOJ issuances functioned as internal prosecutorial guidelines governing when prosecutors may give consent to plea bargains.
Trial Court Proceedings and Ruling
While the prosecution was presenting evidence (May 28, 2018), respondent filed a plea-bargaining proposal to withdraw his not-guilty plea and plead guilty to two counts of illegal possession of drug paraphernalia under Section 12 of R.A. 9165. The prosecution objected, relying on DOJ Circular No. 061-17 which proscribed plea bargaining for Section 5 offenses and prescribed timing for plea bargaining. The trial court, by resolution dated July 20, 2018, declared DOJ Circular Nos. 061-17 and 027-18 and RPO Order No. 027-E-18 unconstitutional and allowed the plea bargain over the prosecution’s objection, re-arraigned respondent, and thereafter (August 31, 2018) rendered judgment convicting him of two counts of Section 12 (possession of paraphernalia) with specified indeterminate sentences and fines. A motion for reconsideration was denied.
Court of Appeals Ruling
On certiorari the Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC’s conviction but deleted the trial court’s pronouncement declaring the DOJ circulars unconstitutional. The CA held that trial judges may allow plea bargaining even over the prosecution’s objection when the objection is solely that plea bargaining would weaken the anti-drug campaign; it found no showing that respondent was a recidivist or otherwise unfit for plea bargaining. The CA therefore sustained the convictions under Section 12 but excised the trial court’s constitutional declaration regarding the DOJ issuances.
Issue Presented to the Supreme Court
Whether the consent of the prosecutor is indispensable to a valid plea bargain in drug cases (i.e., whether a trial court may accept a plea to a lesser offense over the prosecutor’s vigorous objection).
Supreme Court Holding
The petition was granted. The Supreme Court held that the prosecutor’s consent is indispensable to a valid plea bargain to a lesser offense in criminal cases, including drug cases. Because the trial court accepted respondent’s plea to lesser offenses over the prosecution’s vigorous objection, the pleas and the resulting conviction were invalid. The convictions were set aside and the original charges under Sections 5 and 11 of R.A. 9165 were reinstated; the cases were remanded to the RTC for resumption of proceedings on the original informations.
Legal Reasoning — Consent Requirement and Role of the Prosecutor
The Court relied on Rule 116 §2, which expressly conditions the allowance of a plea to a lesser offense on the consent of both the offended party and the prosecutor. The prosecutor represents the State and has full control of criminal prosecutions; the prosecutor’s statutory and constitutional role as guardian of the public interest requires that the prosecutor determine which offense to prosecute based on the evidence. Precedent (People v. Villarama, Jr.) holds that acceptance of a plea to a lesser offense is not a matter of right of the accused but rests within the sound discretion of the court and requires the prosecutor’s consent. Sayre v. Xenos was cited to reiterate that plea bargains require mutual agreement of the parties and remain subject to court approval. The Court thus concluded that the trial court gravely abused its discretion in accepting respondent’s plea in the absence of p
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 164561)
Case Caption, Court, and Date
- G.R. No. 250295 decided by the Supreme Court, Second Division.
- Decision rendered March 15, 2021.
- Title as presented in source: People of the Philippines, petitioner, vs. Naci Borras y Lascano, respondent.
- Decision in the rollo authored by Justice Lazaro‑Javier; final concurrence list: Perlas‑Bernabe, S.A.J. (Chairperson), Gesmundo, Lopez, and Rosario, JJ., concur.
Nature of the Case and Relief Sought
- Petition for certiorari and related relief filed by the People of the Philippines through the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG).
- The petition assails the Court of Appeals Decision dated October 28, 2019 in CA‑G.R. SP No. 159780 (People of the Philippines v. Hon. Soliman M. Santos, Jr., in his capacity as Presiding Judge of RTC Branch 61, Naga City and Naci Borras y Lascano) that upholding respondent’s plea bargain despite the prosecutor’s objection.
- The People seek reinstatement of original charges and/or other affirmative relief from the Supreme Court on the ground that the prosecutor’s consent is indispensable to plea bargaining to a lesser offense in drug cases.
Factual Antecedents — Informations and Specific Acts Alleged
- Two separate Informations dated March 10, 2017 charged Naci Borras y Lascano with violations of Sections 5 and 11, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 (as amended by RA 10640).
- Criminal Case No. 2017‑0358 (Section 5 — Sale of Dangerous Drugs):
- Allegation: On March 10, 2017 in Naga City, accused willfully, unlawfully and criminally sold, dispensed, and delivered one (1) small heat‑sealed transparent plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance weighing 0.032 gram, later marked RCP3‑10‑17, to poseur buyer PO2 Randy C. Pitallano.
- Substance when tested was found positive for Methamphetamine Hydrochloride (“shabu”).
- Criminal Case No. 2017‑0359 (Section 11 — Possession of Dangerous Drugs):
- Allegation: On March 10, 2017 in Naga City, accused possessed, custody and control three (3) heat‑sealed & masking tape‑sealed transparent plastic sachets containing white crystalline substances described and later marked as: (1) RCP‑1 3‑10‑17 weighing 0.1116 g; (2) RCP‑4 3‑10‑17 weighing 0.037 g; and (3) RCP‑3 3‑10‑17 weighing 0.012 g; aggregate weight 0.165 g.
- Substances when tested were found to be Methamphetamine Hydrochloride (“shabu”).
Initial Plea, Trial Status, and Relevant Constitutional/Rulemaking Developments
- On arraignment, respondent pleaded not guilty to both charges; trial thereafter ensued.
- On August 15, 2017, the Supreme Court in Estipona v. Lobrigo declared Section 23 of RA 9165 (which prohibited plea‑bargaining under the Act) unconstitutional as contrary to the Court’s rule‑making power.
- DOJ issued Department Circular No. 061‑17 dated November 21, 2017 titled “Guidelines on Plea Bargaining Agreement for RA 9165,” which set out acceptable plea bargains for certain offenses and included guidance that some offenses (e.g., Section 5 sale) were not eligible for plea‑bargaining under that circular.
- Following Estipona, the Supreme Court promulgated A.M. No. 18‑03‑16‑SC (Adopting the Plea Bargaining Framework in Drug Cases) on April 12, 2018, providing a plea bargaining framework and penalty/quantity guidance for drug‑related offenses.
- On May 17, 2018, the DOJ issued Regional Prosecution Office Order No. 027‑E‑18 reiterating Department Circular No. 061‑17.
- On June 26, 2018, the DOJ issued Department Circular No. 027‑18 amending Circular No. 061‑17 and clarifying allowable plea bargains for Section 5 and Section 11 cases (with stated conditions regarding quantities and drugs involved).
Plea Bargaining Proposal, Prosecutor’s Objection, and Trial Court Action
- While the prosecution was presenting its evidence on May 28, 2018, respondent filed a plea bargaining proposal to withdraw his not‑guilty plea and plead guilty to two counts of Illegal Possession of Drug Paraphernalia under Section 12 of RA 9165 (as amended).
- The prosecution objected, citing DOJ Circular No. 061‑17 (and subsequent guidance) that purported to proscribe plea bargaining for Section 5 sale offenses and prescribing that plea bargaining should be done before the prosecution commenced presentation of evidence.
- By Resolution dated July 20, 2018, the trial court granted respondent’s plea bargaining proposal and ordered re‑arraignment despite the prosecution’s objection; the court expressly declared DOJ Circular Nos. 061‑17 and 027‑18 and RPO Order No. 027‑E‑18 unconstitutional and invalid.
- Grounds articulated by the trial court for declaring DOJ issuances unconstitutional:
- The DOJ issuances contradicted Estipona and A.M. No. 18‑03‑16‑SC.
- The issuances effectively blocked allowable plea bargains in Section 5 cases involving miniscule amounts.
- The issuances encroached on the Supreme Court’s rule‑making power under Article VIII, Section 5(5) of the 1987 Constitution.
- The issuances undermined the state policy behind RA 9165 balancing repression/punishment and treatment/rehabilitation.
- The trial court concluded that because the prosecution’s opposition was grounded on DOJ issuances the court had declared unconstitutional, there was no need to require the prosecutor’s consent to the plea bargain.
- The prosecution’s motion for reconsideration was denied by the trial court in a Resolution dated August 25, 2018.
Re‑arraignment, Plea of Guilt, and Trial Court Judgment
- On July 23, 2018, respondent was re‑arraigned and pleaded guilty to two counts of Illegal Possession of Drug Paraphernalia under Section 12 of RA 9165 (as amended).
- By Judgment dated August 31, 2018, RTC Branch 61, Naga City found respondent guilty and sentenced as follows:
- Criminal Case No. 0358 (Section 12): Indeterminate prison term of three (3) years minimum to four (4) years m