Case Summary (G.R. No. 254564)
Factual and Procedural Antecedents
– Montierro was charged with unlawful sale of methamphetamine hydrochloride (~0.721 g) under Section 5.
– Baldadera faced similar Section 5 charges for ~0.048 g of shabu.
– Both pleaded not guilty at arraignment.
– After pre-trial, each moved to plead guilty to the lesser offense under Section 12 pursuant to the Court’s plea bargaining framework for drug cases.
Plea Bargaining Framework and DOJ Circulars
– August 2017: In Estipona v. Lobrigo, the Court declared unconstitutional a statutory bar on plea bargaining in drug cases and promulgated its own Plea Bargaining Framework in Drugs Cases (A.M. No. 18-03-16-SC, April 10, 2018).
– November 2017: DOJ Circular No. 061-17 prohibited plea bargaining for Section 5 offenses.
– June 2018: DOJ Circular No. 027-18 amended the DOJ policy to allow plea bargaining for Section 5 violators only to Section 11, paragraph 3 offenses.
RTC Proceedings – Montierro
– June 26, 2018: Despite DOJ Circular No. 061-17 and a regional order, the RTC granted Montierro’s plea bargain motion to Section 12, holding DOJ Circular No. 061-17 and the regional order unconstitutional.
– July 30 & November 26, 2018: The prosecution’s motions for reconsideration were denied.
– August 29, 2018: The RTC rendered judgment convicting Montierro of Section 12.
CA Review – Montierro (G.R. No. 254564)
– The CA dismissed the OSG’s petition, finding no grave abuse of discretion by the RTC.
– It agreed that DOJ Circular No. 027-18 encroached on the Supreme Court’s rule-making power and vitiated the prosecutor’s consent.
– OSG’s motion for reconsideration was denied (October 27, 2020).
RTC Proceedings – Baldadera
– June 20, 2018: Baldadera filed a plea bargain proposal to Section 12, citing the Court’s framework.
– June 27, 2018: The RTC granted his motion over the prosecution’s objection grounded on DOJ Circular No. 061-17.
– July 18 & August 13, 2018: Motions for reconsideration by the prosecution were denied.
– August 23, 2018: The RTC convicted Baldadera under Section 12.
CA Review – Baldadera (G.R. No. 254974)
– July 1, 2020: The CA granted the OSG’s petition, nullified the RTC’s orders and judgment, and remanded for reception of defense evidence.
– It held that the prosecutor’s consent is indispensable under Section 2, Rule 116, and that the plea bargain could not be approved over a continuing prosecutorial objection.
– November 26, 2020: Baldadera’s motion for reconsideration was denied.
Issues Consolidated Before the Supreme Court
- Did the trial courts err in declaring DOJ Circulars No. 061-17 and No. 027-18 invalid for encroaching on the Supreme Court’s rule-making power?
- Did the trial courts err in approving plea bargains over the prosecution’s continuing objections grounded on DOJ Circular No. 027-18?
- Is the requirement of mutual agreement of the parties inconsistent with RA 9165’s objectives in small-quantity drug cases?
- Is a drug dependency test a prerequisite for plea bargaining approval?
Supreme Court’s Ruling – Mootness and Exceptions
– May 10, 2022: The DOJ issued Circular No. 18, aligning its plea bargaining guidelines for Section 5 offenses with the Court’s framework (allowing Section 12 pleas for 0.01 – 0.99 g of shabu).
– Consequently, prosecutorial objections based solely on DOJ Circular No. 027-18 are deemed withdrawn; issues are moot and academic.
– Nonetheless, the Court addressed the merits due to: (a) grave constitutional concern over separation of powers; (b) exceptional public interest; (c) capability of repetition yet evading review; and (d) the need to guide bench and bar.
Supreme Court’s Clarifications on Plea Bargaining
– Plea bargaining in criminal cases is a procedural rule within the Supreme Court’s exclusive rule-making power (Art. VIII, Sec. 5[5], 1987 Constitution).
– Section 2, Rule 116 requires: (1) an offer by the accused; (2) consent of the prosecutor and offended party; and (3) approval by the trial court.
– Consent of the parties is indispensable but does not compel court approval; acceptance is within the trial court’s sound discretion.
– Trial courts must independently assess: (a) whether the lesser offense is necessarily included in the charge; (b) qualifications of the accused (e.g., recidivism, habituality, relapse, community notoriety); (c) strength of evidence; and (d) compliance with the Court’s plea bargaining framework.
– Objections by the prosecution must be heard on their merits when based on factors in (b) or (c). Blanket objection solely on conflicting DOJ circulars may be overruled.
– A drug dependency test is required under A.M. No. 18-03-16-SC before plea bargaining is approved; results guide rehabilitation and credit to penalty.
Guidelines in Plea Bargaining for Drug Cases
- Accused’s offer must be in writing.
- Lesser offense must be necessarily included in the original charge.
- Court shall order a
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 254564)
Antecedents
- Montierro was charged under Section 5, Article II of RA 9165 for selling 0.721 g of methamphetamine hydrochloride (“shabu”) in Criminal Case No. 2017-0082 before RTC Branch 24, Naga City.
- Baldadera was charged under the same provision for selling 0.048 g of shabu in Criminal Case No. 2017-0210 before the same court.
- Both pleaded not guilty, underwent pre-trial, and the prosecution formally offered evidence.
- En Banc in Estipona v. Lobrigo declared Section 23 of RA 9165 unconstitutional, permitting plea bargaining in drug cases.
- DOJ issued Circular No. 61 (Nov 2017) barring plea bargaining in Section 5 offenses; Supreme Court then promulgated A.M. No. 18-03-16-SC (Apr 2018) allowing Section 5 offenders with 0.01–0.99 g shabu to plea bargain to Section 12 (paraphernalia).
- DOJ amended its policy via Circular No. 27 (June 2018) to limit Section 5 plea bargains to Section 11(3) (possession of dangerous drugs), disallowing Section 12 bargains.
- Montierro and Baldadera each moved to plea bargain to Section 12; prosecutors objected under DOJ Circulars.
- RTC granted both motions, declared DOJ Circulars 61 and 27 unconstitutional encroachments, and convicted them under Section 12.
- CA dismissed OSG’s petition in Montierro’s case but granted it in Baldadera’s, holding prosecutor’s consent indispensable.
- PJA wrote expressing concern over Reafor and Borras decisions and the plea-bargaining framework’s viability.
- Letters from PJA and from then-Court Administrator Marquez (now J. Marquez) sought clarification on plea bargaining prosecutions.
- Supreme Court consolidated G.R. Nos. 254564, 254974 and A.M. Nos. 21-07-16-SC, 18-03-16-SC for resolution.
Issues
- Did DOJ Circulars 61 and 27 unlawfully encroach on the Supreme Court’s exclusive rule-making power under Article VIII, Section 5(5)?
- Did the RTCs err in approving plea bargains over the prosecution’s continuing objections based on DOJ Circular No. 27?
- Is mutual agreement—especially the prosecution’s consent—indispensable to a valid plea-bargaining agreement under Rule 116, Section 2?
- Does RA 9165’s rehabilitative pu