Title
People vs. Majingcar y Yabut
Case
G.R. No. 249629
Decision Date
Mar 15, 2021
Respondents charged with drug offenses sought plea bargaining; trial court allowed it, declared DOJ circulars unconstitutional. SC ruled plea bargaining improper without prosecution's consent, upheld lesser charge for possession, remanded sale case.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 249629)

Charges and Trial Proceedings

Respondents were charged separately: Majingcar for illegal sale (Section 5, Article II, RA 9165) and Llaguno for illegal possession (Section 11, Article II, RA 9165), both involving methamphetamine hydrochloride. Both pleaded not guilty at arraignment. They later proposed to plea bargain by pleading guilty to a lesser offense—violation of Section 12, Article II of RA 9165—under the Supreme Court’s Plea Bargaining Framework outlined in A.M. No. 18-03-16-SC. The prosecution objected to the plea bargain in the illegal sale case but did not object to the proposal in the illegal possession case.

Trial Court Rulings on Plea Bargaining and DOJ Circulars

The trial court allowed the respondents' plea bargaining proposals despite the prosecution’s objection in the illegal sale case and approved the pleas to the lesser offense in both cases. Furthermore, the trial court declared DOJ Circular Nos. 027 and 061 and Regional Prosecution Office Order No. 027-E-18 unconstitutional on the grounds of infringing the Supreme Court’s rule-making power vis-à-vis the Plea Bargaining Framework. Subsequently, respondents were re-arraigned and pleaded guilty to the lesser offense in both cases, leading to convictions and sentencing in August and September 2018.

Court of Appeals’ Decision and Grounds for Dismissal

The People filed a petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals, challenging the trial court’s approval of the plea bargains and the ruling on the DOJ circulars. The Court of Appeals dismissed the petition on two grounds: the petition was allegedly filed late beyond the sixty-day reglementary period, and the orders lacked merit. It upheld the trial court’s exercise of discretion in approving the plea bargains, relying on the Supreme Court’s prior ruling in Estipona v. Hon. Lobrigo, which held that prohibiting plea bargaining in drug cases was unconstitutional, and affirmed the declaration of unconstitutionality of the DOJ issuances. The People’s motion for reconsideration was denied.

Petition for Review Before the Supreme Court

The People subsequently filed a petition for review, contesting the Court of Appeals’ rulings on several grounds: the correctness of the timing of the petition’s filing, the propriety and legality of the plea bargain approval (particularly in the illegal sale case where the prosecution objected), the constitutionality of the DOJ circulars, and whether the challenge to the verdict violated respondents’ right against double jeopardy.

Timeliness of Petition for Certiorari

The Supreme Court held that the Court of Appeals erred in declaring the petition filed beyond the sixty-day period set under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. The computation of the filing period should have commenced on September 18, 2018, the date the prosecutor received the trial court’s judgment, making the filing of the petition on November 16, 2018 timely. The Court clarified that earlier orders such as the plea bargaining resolutions were interlocutory and not proper subjects of a certiorari petition; thus, the final judgment was the only appealable order. The Court also emphasized accepted exceptions to the requirement of filing a motion for reconsideration prior to seeking certiorari, including issues of law or public interest, both present in this case.

Discretion to Approve Plea Bargaining in Illegal Possession Case

Regarding Criminal Case No. 2016-0775 (illegal possession), the prosecution did not object to the respondents’ plea bargain proposal. Accordingly, the trial court’s approval of the plea bargain and acceptance of the plea of guilty to the lesser offense was proper, resting within the court’s sound discretion without grave abuse.

Lack of Prosecutor’s Consent in Illegal Sale Case and Grave Abuse of Discretion

Conversely, in Criminal Case No. 2016-0774 (illegal sale), the prosecution objected to the plea bargain proposal. Under Section 2, Rule 116 of the Rules of Court, the accused may plead guilty to a lesser offense only with the consent of the prosecutor. Without this consent, the trial court has no discretion to allow the plea. The Supreme Court emphasized that the prosecutor has full control over the prosecution and the duty to prosecute the proper offense based on evidence. Thus, approving the plea bargain over the prosecution’s objection constituted grave abuse of discretion and deprived the trial court of jurisdiction to accept the plea and render judgment. This principle was supported by jurisprudence including Sayre v. Xenos and People v. Villarama, which emphasize prosecutorial consent as a condition precedent in plea bargaining.

Invalidity of the Trial Court’s Declaration of Unconstitutionality of DOJ Circulars

The Supreme Court ruled that the trial court erred in sua sponte declaring DOJ Circular Nos. 027 and 061 and Regional Prosecution Office Order No. 027-E-18 unconstitutional. Such constitutional questions must satisfy requirements of justiciability: presence of an actual controversy, ripeness, proper parties, early raising of the issue, and that the issue is central to the case. None of these requisites was met. Moreover, the Court reaffirmed its prior ruling in Sayre that DOJ Circular No. 27 does not infringe on the Supreme Court's rule-making power and merely serves as an internal guideline for prosecutors on plea bargaining, thereby negating the trial court’s ground for invalidating these issuances.

Double Jeopardy Not Violated by People’s Challenge

The Court found that respondents’ right against double jeopardy was not infringed. Under Section 7, Rule 117 of the Rules of Court, the conviction to a lesser offense

    ...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