Case Summary (G.R. No. 259728)
Charges and Plea Proceedings
Darwin Reyes y Cabornay was charged with two separate violations under RA 9165: illegal possession of two sachets containing methamphetamine hydrochloride totaling 0.118 grams (Criminal Case No. 20215) and unlawful sale of 0.066 grams of the same drug (Criminal Case No. 20216). He pled not guilty at arraignment. Subsequently, on November 15, 2019, during trial, he moved to plead guilty to a lesser offense—illegal possession of drug paraphernalia under Section 12, Article II of RA 9165—in the illegal sale case. The prosecution objected to this plea on the basis that it did not conform to DOJ Circular No. 027's conditions for plea bargaining. Nonetheless, the RTC granted the motion and convicted Reyes of the lesser offense, sentencing him accordingly and declaring him ineligible to apply for probation.
RTC Orders and Motion for Reconsideration
The RTC's November 15, 2019 Order convicted the respondent of illegal possession of drug paraphernalia with an indeterminate sentence of six months and one day to three years imprisonment and a fine, ordering drug testing and potential rehabilitation depending on test results. Importantly, the RTC declared the respondent ineligible to avail of probation rights. The respondent filed a motion for reconsideration contesting his disqualification from probation, which the RTC denied on November 26, 2019.
Court of Appeals Decision and Resolution
Respondent petitioned the CA via certiorari to review the RTC's denial of his motion for reconsideration. The CA granted the petition, annulled the RTC’s November 26, 2019 Order, and deleted the disqualification for probation in the November 15, 2019 Order. The CA directed that the respondent be allowed a period of fifteen (15) days from notice to file an application for probation. The petitioner moved for reconsideration, which the CA denied on March 10, 2022.
Issue Presented
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in ruling that the respondent, convicted of a lesser offense under RA 9165, is eligible to apply for probation despite the initial charge of illegal sale of dangerous drugs.
Supreme Court’s Analysis on Plea Bargaining and Probation Eligibility
The Supreme Court affirmed the CA's decision and denied the petition. It underscored that under Section 24, Article II of RA 9165, probation is inapplicable to persons convicted of drug trafficking or pushing under Section 5, regardless of penalty. However, in the respondent's case, he was convicted not under Section 5 but under Section 12 for illegal possession of drug paraphernalia, a lesser offense following a plea bargain approved by the court pursuant to A.M. No. 18-03-16-SC.
The Court referenced its ruling in Pascua v. People, which held that probation eligibility is determined by the offense of conviction, not the original charge. Thus, once the respondent was convicted of the lesser offense, the bar in Section 24 of RA 9165 against probation no longer applied, making him eligible to apply for probation. Importantly, eligibility to apply does not guarantee probation, as approval remains at the trial court’s discretion.
Validity of Plea Bargain and DOJ Circulars
The respondent’s plea to a lesser offense complied with updated DOJ Circular No. 018, which replaced the prior Circular No. 027. The new circular allows plea bargaining to the offense of illegal possession of drug paraphernalia for illegal sale cases involving 0.01 to 0.99 gram quantities of methamphetamine hydrochloride, consistent with the plea bargaining framework of the Supreme Court in A.M. No. 18-03-16-SC.
Although respondent’s plea was made orally, contrary to the mandated requirement for a formal written motion under both DOJ guidelines and the Court’s clarificatory directives, the Supreme Court applied liberality. This was justified by factors such as the advanced stage of proceedings, the prosecution’s failure to timely raise the procedural defect, the non-jurisdictional nature of the defect, considerations of judicial economy, and the interest in speedy disposition of cases. The prosecution's failure to timely object to the form of the plea bargain implied waiver of this procedural infirmity.
Court’s Clarificatory Guidelines on Plea Bargaining in Drug Cases
The Supreme Court reiterated essential principles governing plea bargaining in drug-related offenses:
- Plea bargaining offers generally must be initiated by a formal written motion.
- The accused may plead guilty only to lesser offenses necessarily included in the original charge.
- The trial court must order drug dependency testing and rehabilitation when appropriate.
- Plea bargaining is subject to the court's sound discretion and is not an automatic right.
- Plea bargaining is disallowed if the accused is a recidivist, habitual offender, or if the evidence of guilt is strong.
- Proposals inconsistent with the Court’s framework are impermissible.
- The court may ove
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 259728)
Background and Procedural History
- The case involves a Petition for Review on Certiorari filed by the People of the Philippines, contesting the Court of Appeals' (CA) decision and resolution which annulled and set aside an RTC order disqualifying Darwin Reyes y Cabornay (respondent) from applying for probation.
- The RTC originally denied respondent’s motion for reconsideration regarding his disqualification for probation in Criminal Case No. 20215.
- Respondent was charged with two separate violations of RA 9165, the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002: illegal possession (Section 11, Article II) and illegal sale of dangerous drugs (Section 5, Article II).
- The charges arose from an incident on October 23, 2019, in Balanga City, Bataan, involving small quantities of "shabu" (methamphetamine hydrochloride).
- Respondent pleaded “not guilty” initially but later moved to plead guilty to a lesser offense of illegal possession of drug paraphernalia (Section 12, Article II) in Criminal Case No. 20216, which the prosecution opposed based on DOJ Circular No. 027.
- The RTC, however, granted the motion to plead to the lesser offense and convicted respondent with an indeterminate penalty and a fine, simultaneously declaring him ineligible for probation.
- Respondent's motion for reconsideration of ineligibility was denied by the RTC.
- He filed a Petition for Certiorari with the CA, which granted the petition, annulled the RTC denial, and deleted the disqualification for probation, allowing respondent to apply within 15 days.
- The People of the Philippines filed a Motion for Reconsideration before the CA, which was denied, leading to the present petition before the Supreme Court.
Issues Presented
- The central legal question is whether the Court of Appeals erred in ruling that Darwin Reyes y Cabornay is eligible to apply for probation despite having been originally charged with illegal sale of dangerous drugs and subsequently convicted of a lesser offense.
Relevant Law and Statutory Provisions
- Republic Act No. 9165 (Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002):
- Section 5 criminalizes sale, distribution, and transport of dangerous drugs.
- Section 11 punishes possession of dangerous drugs.
- Section 12 penalizes illegal possession of drug paraphernalia.
- Section 24 bars persons convicted for drug trafficking or pushing under Section 5 from availing of probation.
- The Probation Law (Presidential Decree No. 968) generally grants privilege of probation except where explicitly barred, such as drug trafficking convictions.
- Department of Justice Circulars:
- DOJ Circular No. 027 provided guidelines on plea bargaining for drug offenses but was challenged by the prosecution’s interpretation.
- DOJ Circular No. 018, issued later, revoked Circular 027 and allowed plea bargaining to a lesser offense of illegal possession of drug paraphernalia for small amounts of shabu.
- Supreme Court Rules:
- The Plea Bargaining Framework for Drug C