Case Summary (A.M. No. 567-CFI)
Petitioner
The People of the Philippines, through the Office of the Solicitor General, sought review of the CA decision and resolution that deleted the RTC’s pronouncement that the respondent was ineligible to apply for probation and which permitted the filing of a probation application.
Respondent
Darwin Reyes y Cabornay was originally charged in two separate informations with violations of RA 9165: Criminal Case No. 20215 (possession, Section 11) alleging 0.118 gram methamphetamine hydrochloride, and Criminal Case No. 20216 (sale, Section 5) alleging 0.066 gram. He pleaded not guilty at arraignment but later moved to plead guilty to a lesser offense in Case No. 20216 (Section 12, possession of drug paraphernalia).
Key Dates
- Arrest/charge date (alleged): October 23, 2019.
- Court hearing and plea-bargain motion: November 15, 2019.
- RTC Order convicting on lesser offense and stating ineligibility for probation: November 15, 2019.
- RTC Order denying reconsideration: November 26, 2019.
- CA Decision annulling the RTC’s ineligibility pronouncement: June 28, 2021.
- CA Resolution denying reconsideration: March 10, 2022.
- Supreme Court decision date: October 12, 2022.
Applicable Law and Guidelines
- Republic Act No. 9165 (Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002), particularly Sections 5 (sale/pushing), 11 (possession of dangerous drugs), 12 (possession of drug paraphernalia), and Section 24 (non-applicability of the Probation Law to drug traffickers/pushers).
- A.M. No. 18-03-16-SC (Court’s Plea Bargaining Framework in Drug Cases).
- DOJ Circular No. 027 (earlier plea-bargain guidelines) and DOJ Circular No. 018 (Revised Amended Guidelines on Plea Bargaining for RA 9165, revoking No. 027).
- Probation Law and the Court’s rule-making power under Section 5(5), Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution.
Antecedents and Charges
The respondent faced two informations stemming from the same date and place. The material allegations were possession of two sachets totaling 0.118 gram and sale of one sachet of 0.066 gram methamphetamine. He initially pleaded not guilty, then during the November 15, 2019 hearing moved to plead guilty to a lesser offense in Case No. 20216—namely, violation of Section 12 (illegal possession of drug paraphernalia).
Trial Proceedings and RTC Disposition
The RTC accepted the respondent’s plea to the lesser offense in Case No. 20216 and convicted him for violation of Section 12, sentencing him to an indeterminate term (six months and one day to three years) and a fine. The RTC order expressly stated that the accused was ineligible to apply for probation in that case. The RTC directed drug testing and possible rehabilitation and later denied the respondent’s motion for reconsideration of the ineligibility pronouncement.
Court of Appeals Ruling
The CA granted the respondent’s petition for certiorari and annulled the RTC’s November 26, 2019 Order insofar as it declared the respondent ineligible for probation. The CA modified the November 15, 2019 Order by deleting the sentence declaring ineligibility and gave the respondent 15 days to apply for probation before the trial court.
Issue Presented to the Supreme Court
Whether the CA erred in declaring the respondent eligible to apply for probation despite his initial charge for illegal sale (Section 5) of illegal drugs.
Supreme Court Holding — Disposition
The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the CA decision in toto. The Court ordered that the RTC’s pronouncement of ineligibility to apply for probation be deleted, and it afforded the respondent 15 days from notice of the decision to file an application for probation before the RTC.
Governing Legal Principle on Probation Eligibility
The Court reaffirmed that Section 24 of RA 9165 bars the application of the Probation Law to persons convicted for drug trafficking or pushing under the Act. However, the critical legal point is that probation eligibility depends on the offense of conviction, not the original charge in the information. Accordingly, if an accused is ultimately convicted of a lesser offense that is not covered by Section 24, that accused may, at least, apply for probation.
Precedent Applied (Pascua v. People)
The Court applied the reasoning of Pascua v. People: what matters for probation eligibility is the offense of which the accused is ultimately convicted, not the initial charge. Because the respondent was convicted of Section 12 (possession of drug paraphernalia) rather than Section 5 (sale/pushing), Section 24’s bar on probation for traffickers/pushers did not apply to his conviction.
Plea Bargaining Framework and DOJ Circulars
The Court considered the plea-bargain framework under A.M. No. 18-03-16-SC and the DOJ guidance. It noted that DOJ Circular No. 018 (May 10, 2022) revised the DOJ position and allowed plea to Section 12 where the illegal sale involved 0.01 to 0.99 gram of shabu—thus encompassing the respondent’s alleged 0.066 gram. The Court stressed that plea bargaining in criminal cases is governed by the Court’s rule-making power under Section 5(5), Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution and that the Court’s framework controls.
Procedural Defect: Oral Motion vs. Written Plea-Bargain Offer
Although the Court’s guidelines and the DOJ circulars required plea-bargain offers to be initiated by written motion, the respondent’s offer was made orally in open court. The Supreme Court applied liberality in excusing this formal defect for the instant case, citing factors that included: the late stage of proceedings, the prosecutor’s failure to timely raise the defect before the RTC, the non-jurisdictional and non-fatal nature of the defect, considerations of judicial economy and efficiency, and the principle of speedy disposition of cases.
Waiver by the Prosecution and Trial Court Discretion
The Court emphasized that the prosecution had not objected to the oral nature of the offer; its objection concerned the propriety of the particular lesser offense under then-applicable DOJ Circular No. 027. A non-jurisdictional procedural defect may be waived by failure to seasonably raise it; thus, the prosecution was deemed to have waived objection to the lack of a written motion. The Court also reiterated that acceptance of a plea bargain remains within the sound discretion
...continue readingCase Syllabus (A.M. No. 567-CFI)
Court, Case Number, Date, and Authoring Justice
- Third Division, G.R. No. 259728, Decision dated October 12, 2022.
- Decision authored by Justice Inting.
- Petition for Review on Certiorari filed by the People of the Philippines through the Office of the Solicitor General.
- Review assailed the Court of Appeals Decision dated June 28, 2021 and Resolution dated March 10, 2022 in CA G.R. SP No. 164335.
- The Court of Appeals had annulled and set aside the RTC Order dated November 26, 2019 (Branch 1, Regional Trial Court of Balanga City, Bataan, Criminal Case No. 20215) that denied reconsideration and disqualified respondent from applying for probation.
Parties
- Petitioner: People of the Philippines (through the Office of the Solicitor General).
- Respondent: Darwin Reyes y Cabornay.
Informations, Charges, and Factual Allegations
- Two separate Informations charged respondent with violations of RA 9165:
- Criminal Case No. 20215 (alleged violation of Section 11, Article II of RA 9165 — Possession of Dangerous Drugs):
- Allegation: On or about October 23, 2019, in Balanga City, Bataan, respondent had in his possession, custody and control two (2) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachets containing methamphetamine hydrochloride ("shabu") with total weight of 0.118 gram.
- Criminal Case No. 20216 (alleged violation of Section 5, Article II of RA 9165 — Sale/Distribution of Dangerous Drugs):
- Allegation: On or about October 23, 2019, in Balanga City, Bataan, respondent sold, distributed and gave away one (1) heat-sealed transparent sachet containing methamphetamine hydrochloride ("shabu") weighing 0.066 gram.
- Criminal Case No. 20215 (alleged violation of Section 11, Article II of RA 9165 — Possession of Dangerous Drugs):
- Upon arraignment, respondent pleaded "not guilty" to the charges.
Trial Events and Plea Bargaining Attempt
- During the hearing on November 15, 2019, respondent moved in open court to plead guilty to a lesser offense in Criminal Case No. 20216:
- Proposed reduction: from violation of Section 5 (illegal sale) to Section 12 (illegal possession of drug paraphernalia), Article II of RA 9165.
- The prosecution objected to the proposed plea bargain on the ground that it did not conform to the conditions set forth in DOJ Circular No. 027.
- The offer to plea bargain was made orally in open court (not by a formal written motion).
Regional Trial Court Orders and Sentencing
- RTC Order dated November 15, 2019:
- The RTC granted respondent's motion to plea to the lesser offense in Criminal Case No. 20216 and found him guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Section 12, Article II of RA 9165.
- Sentence: indeterminate imprisonment of six months and one day (minimum) to three years (maximum) and a fine of Php10,000.00 with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency.
- Directions and ancillary provisions in the RTC Order included:
- District Jail Warden of Bataan to bring respondent to Bataan Crime Laboratory for drug testing.
- If drug test is POSITIVE: referral to Liyang Treatment and Rehabilitation Center for further drug dependency testing and rehabilitation for not less than six months, with that period credited against the sentence.
- If drug test is NEGATIVE: release after serving the sentence or time served, unless held for other lawful causes.
- Preventive imprisonment counted in sentence computation; District Jail Warden to submit a report.
- Express declaration: "Make it of record that accused is ineligible to apply for probation in this case." (italics in original)
- Respondent filed a motion for reconsideration specifically challenging the RTC's declaration of ineligibility for probation.
- RTC denied the motion for reconsideration in an Order dated November 26, 2019.
Proceedings in the Court of Appeals
- Respondent filed a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 before the Court of Appeals (CA).
- CA Decision dated June 28, 2021:
- Granted the petition.
- Annulled and set aside the RTC Order dated November 26, 2019.
- Modified the November 15, 2019 RTC Order by deleting the sentence: "Make it of record that accused is ineligible to apply for probation in this case."
- Directed that respondent be given fifteen (15) days from notice of the CA Decision to file his application for probation before the RTC.
- CA denied petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration in its Resolution dated March 10, 2022.
Issue Presented to the Supreme Court
- Whether the Court of Appeals erred in ruling that respondent is eligible to apply for probation (i.e., whether the deletion of the RTC's pronouncement of ineligibility and the CA's direction allowing respondent to apply for probation were erroneous).
Supreme Court Ruling (Disposition)
- Petition for Review on Certiorari is DENIED.
- The Decision dated June 28, 2021 and the Resolution dated March 10, 2022 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 164335 are AFFIRMED in toto.
- Respondent Darwin Reyes y Cabornay is given fifteen (15) days from notice of the Supreme Court Decision to file his application for probation before the court a quo.
- Concurring Justices: Gaerlan, Dimaampao, and Singh, JJ.
- Justice Caguioa (Chairperson) was on official leave.
Supreme Court's Legal Reasoning — Statutory and Doctrinal Foundations
- Statutory provision at issue:
- Section 24, Article II of RA 9165: "Any person convicted for drug trafficking or pushing under this Act, regardless of the penalty imposed by the Court, cannot avail of the privilege granted by the Probation Law or Presidential Decree No. 968, as amended."
- Central legal principle applied:
- Eligibility for probation depends on the offense of which the accused is ultimately convicted, not solely on the offense charged in the Information.
- Citation and reliance on Pascua v. People, G.R. No. 250578, September 7, 2020:
- Pascua held that in applying for probation, what is essential is the offense to which the accused is ultimately found guilty, and therefore a conviction for a lesser offense by plea bargain can remove the case from the coverage of Section 24, Article II of RA 9165, allowing the accused to at least apply for probation.
- Application to