Case Summary (G.R. No. 249629)
Applicable Law and Authorities
- Republic Act No. 9165 (Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002), specifically Sections 5, 11, and 12, Article II.
- Rule 116, Section 2 and Rule 117, Section 7 of the Rules of Court.
- A.M. No. 18-03-16-SC (Plea Bargaining Framework in Drugs Cases).
- DOJ Circular Nos. 061 (Nov. 21, 2017) and 027 (June 26, 2018); RPO Order No. 027-E-18 (May 17, 2018).
- Controlling precedents cited: Estipona v. Lobrigo; Sayre v. Xenos; People v. Villarama; and other cited jurisprudence on plea bargaining, prosecutorial discretion, and constitutionality review.
Overview of the Charged Facts
Two criminal informations were filed: Criminal Case No. 2016-0774 charging illegal sale of methamphetamine (Section 5, Article II, RA 9165) for one sachet (0.056 g); and Criminal Case No. 2016-0775 charging illegal possession of methamphetamine (Section 11, Article II, RA 9165) for nine sachets (total 0.309 g). Both respondents pleaded not guilty at arraignment and trial followed.
Plea Bargaining Proposals and Prosecution’s Response
Respondents separately proposed to plead guilty to the lesser offense under Section 12, Article II of RA 9165 pursuant to the Plea Bargaining Framework (A.M. No. 18-03-16-SC). The prosecution, invoking DOJ Circular No. 027, counter-proposed for Criminal Case No. 2016-0774 that respondents plead guilty to Section 5 with penalty under paragraph 3, Section 11; for Criminal Case No. 2016-0775 the prosecution interposed no objection to a plea to Section 12.
Trial Court Plea Bargaining Resolutions and Judgment
- Plea Bargaining Resolution (Aug. 6, 2018): The trial court allowed respondents to plead to the lesser offense as proposed and declared DOJ Circulars 061 and 027 and RPO Order No. 027-E-18 unconstitutional for allegedly undermining the Supreme Court’s rule-making power and the Plea Bargaining Framework.
- Plea Bargaining Resolution II (Sept. 1, 2018): Denied the prosecution’s motion for reconsideration.
- Re-arraignment (Sept. 5, 2018): Respondents changed pleas to guilty to Section 12 in both cases.
- Judgment (Sept. 18, 2018): The trial court found both respondents guilty of Section 12 in both cases, sentencing (for Crim. Case No. 2016-0774) to 2–3 years and P20,000 fine, and (for Crim. Case No. 2016-0775) to 1–2 years and P20,000 fine.
Court of Appeals Ruling
The CA dismissed the People’s petition for certiorari (filed Nov. 16, 2018) on two grounds: (1) late filing — the CA deemed the 60-day period expired on Nov. 4, 2018; and (2) lack of merit — it held the trial court did not gravely abuse its discretion in allowing plea bargaining under A.M. No. 18-03-16-SC and sustained the trial court’s declaration that DOJ Circulars 027 and 061 and RPO Order No. 027-E-18 were unconstitutional as contrary to the Plea Bargaining Framework and Estipona.
Issues Presented to the Supreme Court
I. Whether the CA erred in declaring the People’s petition for certiorari out of time.
II. Whether the CA erred in affirming the trial court’s allowance of plea bargaining to Section 12 in both cases.
III. Whether the CA erred in affirming the trial court’s declaration that DOJ Circulars 027 and 061 and RPO Order No. 027-E-18 are unconstitutional.
IV. Whether the People’s challenge violates respondents’ double jeopardy rights.
Supreme Court Ruling — Timeliness of the Petition (Rule 65)
The Supreme Court held the CA committed reversible error in finding the petition filed out of time. Under Rule 65, the 60-day period runs from notice of the judgment, order, or resolution sought to be assailed. The prosecutor received notice of the trial court’s judgment on Sept. 18, 2018, thus the 60-day period expired on Nov. 17, 2018. The People filed the certiorari petition on Nov. 16, 2018; therefore it was timely. The Court also explained that the earlier Plea Bargaining Resolutions (Aug. 6 and Sept. 1, 2018) were interlocutory and not proper subjects of certiorari; a single challenge to the final judgment is the proper procedure and prevents piecemeal appeals.
Supreme Court Ruling — Criminal Case No. 2016-0775 (Possession)
For Criminal Case No. 2016-0775 (possession), the prosecution interposed no objection to respondents pleading guilty to Section 12. The Court held that, with the prosecution’s consent, the trial court properly exercised its sound discretion under Rule 116, Section 2, and A.M. No. 18-03-16-SC to accept the plea bargain, re-arraign, and render judgment. The CA’s affirmation of this plea and conviction was correct and is affirmed.
Supreme Court Ruling — Criminal Case No. 2016-0774 (Sale) and Prosecutor’s Consent Requirement
The Court held the trial court gravely abused its discretion and acted without jurisdiction in Criminal Case No. 2016-0774 by approving respondents’ plea to Section 12 despite the prosecution’s vigorous objection. Rule 116, Section 2 requires the consent of the prosecutor (and offended party where applicable) for a plea of guilty to a lesser offense to vest discretion in the trial court. In drug cases with no private offended party, the prosecutor’s consent is the operative condition precedent. The trial court’s approval in the face of the prosecution’s continuing and clear objection constituted an overreach and grave abuse. Consequently, the Court reversed and set aside the CA decision insofar as Criminal Case No. 2016-0774 is concerned and remanded that case to the RTC for further proceedings.
Supreme Court Ruling — Trial Court’s Motu Proprio Declaration of Unconstitutionality
The Supreme Court found that the trial court acted with gross ignorance of the law and without jurisdiction in declaring DOJ Circular No. 027 unconstitutional on its own motion. Judicial review of the constitutionality of administrative issuances requires the established requisites: a justiciable controversy, ripeness, proper party standing, and that the constitutional issu
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 249629)
The Case
- Petition for certiorari filed by the People of the Philippines (represented by the Office of the Solicitor General through Solicitor General Jose C. Calida, Senior State Solicitor Catalina A. Catral-Talatala and Senior State Solicitor Jose Antonio H. Blanco) seeks to set aside:
- The Court of Appeals Decision in CA-G.R. SP No. 158396 dated April 5, 2019 dismissing the petition for late filing and for lack of merit; and
- The Court of Appeals Resolution dated September 24, 2019 denying the People’s motion for reconsideration.
- Case decided by the Supreme Court, Special En Banc, with Justice Lazaro-Javier authoring the Decision (March 15, 2021, G.R. No. 249629).
Antecedents — Charges and Procedural Posture
- Respondents: Edgar Majingcar y Yabut (Majingcar) and Christopher Ryan Llaguno y Matos (Llaguno).
- Two separate criminal informations:
- Criminal Case No. 2016-0774 — charged with violation of Section 5, Article II of RA No. 9165 (Sale of Dangerous Drugs):
- Allegation: On or about October 5, 2016, City of Naga, accused, conspiring and mutually helping one another, sold one (1) medium heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet marked EM-1 10-5-16 weighing 0.056 gram of white crystalline substance to poseur buyer SP02 Clifford A. De Jesus; tested positive for Methamphetamine Hydrochloride (“shabu”).
- Criminal Case No. 2016-0775 — charged with violation of Section 11, Article II of RA No. 9165 (Possession of Dangerous Drugs):
- Allegation: On or about October 5, 2016, City of Naga, accused, conspiring and mutually helping one another, had in possession/custody/control nine (9) small heat-sealed sachets marked EM-1A-1 to EM-1A-9, total weight 0.309 grams, tested and determined to be Methamphetamine Hydrochloride (“shabu”).
- Criminal Case No. 2016-0774 — charged with violation of Section 5, Article II of RA No. 9165 (Sale of Dangerous Drugs):
- Arraignment: Both respondents pleaded not guilty to both charges; trial ensued.
Plea Bargaining Proposals and Prosecution’s Response
- Respondents, on separate occasions, submitted proposals to plead guilty to a lesser offense — violation of Section 12, Article II of RA 9165 — pursuant to A.M. No. 18-03-16-SC (Adoption of the Plea Bargaining Framework in Drugs Cases).
- Prosecution’s comment:
- Cited DOJ Circular No. 027 dated June 26, 2018.
- Counter-proposed respondents plead guilty to Section 5 in Criminal Case No. 2016-0774 but subject the penalty to paragraph 3, Section 11 of RA 9165.
- Interposed no objection to respondents’ proposal to plead guilty to Section 12 in Criminal Case No. 2016-0775 (in lieu of Section 11).
Ruling of the Trial Court (Plea Bargaining Resolutions, Re-arraignment, Judgment)
- Plea Bargaining Resolution dated August 6, 2018:
- Trial court allowed both respondents to plead to the lesser offense as proposed.
- The trial court declared DOJ Circular Nos. 061 (Nov. 21, 2017) and 027 (June 26, 2018) and RPO Order No. 027-E-18 (May 17, 2018) unconstitutional and invalid for contravening the Supreme Court’s rule-making power, Estipona decision, A.M. No. 18-03-16-SC, and the equal protection clause.
- The defense proposal for plea bargaining was allowed over the prosecution’s objection; court ordered re-arraignment on August 8.
- Prosecution moved for reconsideration; denied under Plea Bargaining Resolution II dated September 1, 2018.
- Re-arraignment (September 5, 2018): Respondents changed pleas from “not guilty” to “guilty” to the lesser offense (Section 12, Article II of RA 9165) in both Criminal Case Nos. 2016-0774 and 2016-0775, pursuant to the court-approved plea bargaining proposals.
- Trial Court Judgment dated September 18, 2018 (assailed judgment):
- Found both accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt.
- Criminal Case No. 2016-0774 (as principals in violation of RA 9165, Sec. 12): sentenced each to indeterminate prison term of 2 years (minimum) to 3 years (maximum) and fine of P20,000.00.
- Criminal Case No. 2016-0775 (as principals in violation of RA 9165, Sec. 12): sentenced each to indeterminate prison term of 1 year (minimum) to 2 years (maximum) and fine of P20,000.00.
Ruling of the Court of Appeals
- Petition for certiorari by the People dismissed by the Court of Appeals in Decision dated April 5, 2019 on two grounds:
- Late filing: Court of Appeals held the petition was filed on November 16, 2018 beyond the 60-day period which it considered to have expired on November 4, 2018.
- Lack of merit: Court of Appeals concluded the trial court did not gravely abuse its discretion in allowing respondents to plead to a lesser offense, referencing Estipona v. Hon. Lobrigo (816 Phil. 789, 2017) which struck down the prohibition against plea bargaining in drug cases; Court of Appeals also upheld the trial court’s declaration that DOJ Circulars 027 and 061 and RPO Order No. 027-E-18 are unconstitutional for being contrary to Estipona and A.M. No. 18-03-16-SC.
- People’s motion for reconsideration to the Court of Appeals denied by Resolution dated September 24, 2019.
The Present Petition by the People — Main Contentions
- The People prays that respondents’ pleas to a lesser offense (Section 12, Article II of RA 9165) in both Criminal Case Nos. 2016-0774 and 2016-0775 be set aside and the cases remanded to the trial court for further proceedings.
- Timeliness challenge to CA’s dismissal:
- Argues its petition for certiorari was filed on November 16, 2018 which was within the 60-day period reckoned from September 18, 2018 (date when Naga City Prosecution Office received the assailed judgment), giving until November 17, 2018 to file.
- Contends Court of Appeals erred in counting the 60 days from September 5, 2018 (re-arraignment), resulting in an incorrect November 4 deadline.
- Merits:
- Asserts A.M. No. 18-03-16-SC does not dispense with the required consent of the prosecutor whenever an accused proposes plea bargaining.
- Argues the trial court gravely abused its discretion in Criminal Case No. 2016-0774 by allowing plea to the lesser offense without the prosecutor’s consent thereby encroaching on prosecutor’s direction and control of prosecution.
- Faults the trial court for declaring DOJ Circulars 027 and 061 and RPO Order No. 027-E-18 unconstitutional when none of the parties prayed for such declaration.
- Since plea bargaining in 0774 was improper, respondents cannot claim double jeopardy; they may still be prosecuted under the original charges.
Respondents’ Principal Defenses
- Majingcar:
- Seeks dismissal of the People’s petition on grounds of finality of the trial court’s judgment; People’s failure to file a motion for reconsideration of the Court of Appeals decision; and that the People resorted to an improper remedy against a final and executory judgment.
- Argues that while the prosecutor retains direction and control over prosecution, plea bargaining is addressed to the sound discretion of the judge.
- Maintains that although the constitutionality of the DOJ circulars was not raised or prayed for, the trial court’s resolution was necess