Case Summary (G.R. No. 257683)
Criminal Charges and the Charged Acts
The public prosecutor filed two separate Informations against respondent. In Criminal Case No. R-TAC-15-00331-CR, respondent was charged with illegal sale of one heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet containing 0.0416 gram of shabu, delivered to a poseur-buyer, a member of the PDEA, in exchange for two PHP five hundred peso bills marked money. In Criminal Case No. R-TAC-15-00332-CR, respondent was charged with illegal possession of two heat-sealed transparent plastic sachets containing a total of 0.0694 gram of shabu.
In substance, the prosecution alleged that respondent committed two distinct offenses: the sale of a small quantity of shabu and the possession of additional small quantity of shabu later confirmed as such.
Respondent’s Motion to Plea Bargain and the Prosecution’s Opposition
During trial, respondent filed a Motion to Allow Accused to Plea Bargain dated July 21, 2018. He prayed that he be allowed to plead guilty to a lesser offense under Section 12, Article II of RA 9165, rather than to the charged offenses under Sections 5 and 11, Article II. The prosecution opposed the motion.
The prosecution’s opposition relied on DOJ Department Circular No. 27, asserting that for a charge under Section 5 of RA 9165 where the quantity of shabu was less than five grams, the acceptable plea bargain should be to Section 11, Article II rather than Section 12. As to the second case, which corresponded to the charge under Section 11, the prosecution requested time to study the motion because trial on the merits had already commenced.
The RTC’s Approval of the Plea Bargain
The RTC issued a Joint Order dated July 30, 2018 approving the plea bargain over the prosecution’s objection. The RTC reasoned that the approval aligned with the rationale behind RA 9165 and the guidance of A.M. No. 18-03-16-SC. It emphasized that the plea bargaining framework included mandatory safeguards: a drug dependency examination (DDE), followed by rehabilitation, counseling, and related interventions as conditions tied to the outcomes of the DDE.
The RTC further held that the prosecution failed to show that plea bargaining would defeat the purposes of RA 9165. On the contrary, the RTC viewed plea bargaining as beneficial to public order because it would result in respondent’s conviction while granting him the opportunity for rehabilitation and reintegration into society.
The Joint Order directed that respondent undergo a DDE at the Eastern Visayas Regional Medical Center, required a subsequent course depending on the DDE result, and ordered respondent’s re-arraignment on January 22, 2019 at a specified time under the original Informations but qualified by the approved lesser offenses.
The People’s Challenge in the CA
The public prosecutor filed a Motion for Reconsideration, but it was denied by the RTC in an Order dated August 30, 2018. Thereafter, the People, represented by the OSG, filed a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 in the CA, claiming that the RTC had committed grave abuse of discretion in approving respondent’s plea bargain.
On November 22, 2019, the CA rendered a Consolidated Decision dismissing the petitions and affirming the RTC. The CA underscored that the power and authority to promulgate rules of procedure belongs exclusively to the Supreme Court. It relied on OCA Circular No. 80-2019, which stressed that plea bargaining is addressed to the judge’s sound discretion and is guided by issuances such as A.M. No. 18-03-16-SC. The CA concluded that the RTC did not gravely abuse its discretion.
Issues Raised in the Supreme Court
In the Supreme Court, the People faulted the CA on two main points: first, that the CA allegedly disregarded the principles of mutuality and consensuality in plea bargaining; and second, that the CA’s approval of plea bargaining over the prosecution’s objection allegedly violated the People’s procedural due process.
The Supreme Court’s Treatment of the Governing Plea Bargaining Framework
The Supreme Court denied the petition. It began by taking judicial notice of DOJ Department Circular No. 18 dated May 10, 2022, which, by its terms, effectively revoked DOJ Department Circular No. 27. Under the newer circular, when the subject of illegal sale involved 0.01 gram to 0.99 gram of shabu, the accused may plead to the lesser offense of Illegal Possession of Drug Paraphernalia under Section 12, Article II of RA 9165. The Court noted that this outcome matched the plea bargaining framework reflected in A.M. No. 18-03-16-SC.
Thus, the Court concluded that respondent’s prayed plea bargain to Section 12 was in accordance with A.M. No. 18-03-16-SC and with DOJ Circular No. 18. While the newer circular rendered the immediate circular-based arguments in the case largely moot, the Court still considered the merits to stress the Supreme Court’s exclusive rule-making authority and to provide guidance to the bench and the bar because the issues were capable of repetition yet evading review.
Exclusive Rule-Making Power and the Nature of Plea Bargaining
The Court emphasized that plea bargaining in criminal cases was a rule of procedure falling within the Supreme Court’s exclusive rule-making power under Section 5(5), Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution. For that reason, the Court reiterated that rule-making over plea bargaining procedure was no longer shared with the executive or legislative branches.
The Court also discussed prior rulings supporting the view that the earlier DOJ circular functioned as an internal guideline and did not repeal or modify the plea bargaining framework established through A.M. No. 18-03-16-SC. In Sayre v. Xenos, the Court upheld the constitutionality of DOJ Department Circular No. 27, but it clarified that the circular served only as a guideline for prosecutors to follow before giving consent. It did not alter the framework under A.M. No. 18-03-16-SC. The Court further recognized that under the framework, trial courts retained discretionary authority to grant or deny plea bargaining proposals.
The People’s Reliance on Reafor and the Court’s Distinguishing of the Present Case
The Court referenced People v. Reafor, where it voided an RTC order granting plea bargaining from Section 5 to Section 12 when the plea was made without the prosecution’s consent, followed by a conviction based on the plea. In that case, the RTC had granted the motion despite the prosecution’s opposition and quickly rendered judgment.
In the present case, however, the RTC considered the submissions of both parties before issuing the Joint Order approving the plea bargain. The Court observed that Reafor itself recognized that although plea bargaining requires mutual agreement, it remained subject to the trial court’s approval, and the accused did not possess a demandable right to have the proposal accepted because the matter was addressed entirely to the trial court’s sound discretion. The Court treated the prosecution’s opposition as a continuing objection that the trial court should resolve in the exercise of discretion.
Clarificatory Guidelines on Drugs Plea Bargaining and Discretion
The Court cited and applied clarificatory guidelines from subsequent consolidated cases, where the Court underscored its role in balancing state machinery and issued structured directives for judges in drugs plea bargaining. The guidelines recognized that plea bargaining requires mutual agreement and remains subject to court approval, and that acceptance is not demandable as a matter of right.
The guidelines further provided that courts must determine whether the objection is valid and supported by evidence, such as when the offender is a recidivist or habitual offender, a known drug addict and troublemaker, has undergone rehabilitation but relapsed, or when the evidence of guilt is strong. Courts were not to allow plea bargaining when the proposed plea bargain did not conform to the Court-issued framework. Judges could overrule prosecution objections if based solely on grounds inconsistent with the Court’s framework, and if objections raised enumerated circumstances were s
...continue reading
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 257683)
- People of the Philippines sought review of a Court of Appeals (CA) decision that affirmed the Regional Trial Court (RTC) approval of Rene Esma y Joven’s plea bargain to a lesser offense under Republic Act No. 9165 (Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002).
- The case involved the propriety of approving a plea bargain despite the prosecution’s objection, and the claimed effect on the prosecution’s procedural due process.
Parties and Procedural Posture
- Petitioner People of the Philippines, represented by the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court assailing the CA decision.
- Respondent Rene Esma y Joven was the accused who applied for plea bargaining during trial in the RTC.
- The CA affirmed the RTC’s Joint Order approving the plea bargain, prompting the present petition.
- The Supreme Court denied the petition for review on certiorari for failure to show a reversible error in the CA’s affirmance of the RTC.
Key Factual Allegations
- The public prosecutor charged respondent in two (2) Informations for offenses under Article II of RA 9165.
- In Criminal Case No. R-TAC-15-00331-CR, respondent was alleged to have sold and delivered one heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet of shabu weighing 0.0416 gram to a poseur-buyer, in exchange for marked money.
- In Criminal Case No. R-TAC-15-00332-CR, respondent was alleged to have possessed two heat-sealed transparent plastic sachets of shabu with a total weight of 0.0694 gram.
- Respondent’s conduct in the allegations was later confirmed to involve shabu.
- The charged offenses were (a) Sections 5 and 11, Article II of RA 9165 in the sale and possession cases, respectively.
Motion to Plea Bargain
- During trial, respondent filed a Motion to Allow Accused to Plea Bargain dated July 21, 2018.
- Respondent prayed to plead guilty to the lesser offense of Section 12, Article II of RA 9165 for “Possession of Equipment, Instrument, Apparatus and Other Paraphernalia for Dangerous Drugs.”
- Respondent sought this lesser plea in lieu of the charged offenses of Illegal Sale (Sections 5) and Illegal Possession (Section 11).
- The prosecution opposed the motion.
- The prosecution’s opposition invoked DOJ Department Circular No. 27, contending that for Section 5 violations where shabu quantity was less than five grams, the acceptable plea bargain was instead Section 11.
RTC’s Joint Order Approval
- The RTC, Branch 8, Tacloban City approved the plea bargain in a Joint Order dated July 30, 2018.
- The RTC found the plea bargain consistent with the rationale behind RA 9165 and the framework under A.M. No. 18-03-16-SC titled “Adoption of the Plea Bargaining Framework in Drugs Cases.”
- The RTC emphasized that the rules it followed required a drug dependency examination (DDE).
- The RTC ruled that, after the DDE, the accused had to undergo rehabilitation and counseling depending on the examination result.
- The RTC held that the prosecution’s opposition did not demonstrate that allowing plea bargaining would defeat the purposes of RA 9165.
- The RTC added that plea bargaining would serve public order by enabling conviction while providing a chance for rehabilitation and reintegration.
- The RTC’s dispositive conditions required:
- The accused to undergo DDE at the Eastern Visayas Regional Medical Center, with a report to be submitted thereafter.
- The accused to undergo rehabilitation, outpatient or inpatient as recommended, or counseling if the accused tested negative.
- Re-arraignment on January 22, 2019 at 8:30 a.m. under the original Informations but qualified by the approved lesser offenses.
CA Decision and Rationale
- The CA dismissed the petitions brought before it for lack of merit and upheld the RTC’s approval of the plea bargain.
- The CA noted that the power and authority to promulgate rules of procedure lies exclusively with the Supreme Court.
- The CA cited OCA Circular No. 80-2019 to emphasize that plea bargaining remains within the sound discretion of the judge, guided by the Supreme Court’s issuances, particularly A.M. No. 18-03-16-SC.
- The CA concluded that the RTC did not gravely abuse its discretion in approving respondent’s plea bargain despite the prosecution’s opposition.
Issues Raised on Review
- The petitioner argued that the CA erred in disregarding the principles of mutuality and consensuality in plea bargaining agreements.
- The petitioner also argued that approving the plea bargain over the prosecution’s objection violated its right to procedural due process.
Supreme Court’s Framework of Review
- The Supreme Court found no reversible error in the CA’s affirmance of the RTC’s approval of the plea bargain.
- The Court treated the decisive problem as one of compliance with the controlling plea bargaining framework and the proper judicial approach to prosecution objections.
- The Court did not accept the OSG’s position that prosecutorial consent is indispensable in a manner that removes judicial discretion entirely.
Judicial Notice of DOJ Circular No. 18
- The Supreme Court took judicial notice of DOJ Department Circular No. 18 dated May 10, 2022, which effectively revoked DOJ Department Circular No. 27.
- Under DOJ Circular No. 18, when the illegal sale involved 0.01 gram to 0.99 gram of shabu, the accused could plead to Section 12, Article II of RA 9165 for illegal possession of drug paraphernalia.
- The Court treated this as aligned with the plea bargaining framework