Case Summary (G.R. No. 268672)
Petitioner
Vicente Suarez Jr. y Banua
Respondent
People of the Philippines (public prosecutor)
Key Dates
• March 20, 2019 – Alleged sale of 2.1585 g of shabu
• May 27, 2019 – Information filed for violation of Article II, Section 5, RA 9165
• September 21, 2019 – Plea of not guilty entered
• August 3, 2020 – Motion to plead guilty to lesser offense (Section 12, RA 9165) filed
• September 14, 2020 – RTC order granting plea to lesser offense
• October 1, 2020 – RTC conviction under Section 12, RA 9165
• November 17, 2020 – RTC denial of reconsideration
• October 27, 2022 – CA decision nullifying RTC dispositions and remanding for trial on original charge
• July 11, 2023 – CA denial of reconsideration
• December 4, 2023 – Supreme Court decision
Applicable Law
• 1987 Philippine Constitution (double jeopardy clause)
• Republic Act No. 9165 (Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002)
• Rule 45, Rules of Court (Petition for Review on Certiorari)
• A.M. No. 18-03-16-SC (Plea Bargaining Framework in Drugs Cases)
• Jurisprudence: People v. Montierro; Estipona v. Lobrigo; People v. Nitafan; Villa Gomez v. People
Antecedents
An information charged Suarez with illegally selling and delivering one heat-sealed sachet containing 2.1585 g of shabu, in violation of Article II, Section 5, RA 9165. He initially pleaded not guilty. He later filed a motion to plead guilty to the lesser offense of possession of drug paraphernalia (Section 12, RA 9165). The prosecution opposed, arguing sufficient evidence for the original charge and asserting that plea bargaining in drug cases requires prosecutorial and law enforcement consent.
Ruling of the Regional Trial Court
The RTC granted Suarez’s motion despite the prosecutor’s objection. Suarez was re-arraigned, pleaded guilty to Section 12, and was convicted with an indeterminate sentence of two to four years and a ₱10,000 fine. Conditions of probation included participation in rehabilitation, community lectures, and cooperation with anti-drug agencies. The RTC denied the prosecution’s reconsideration motion.
Ruling of the Court of Appeals
The CA granted the prosecution’s petition for certiorari, nullified the RTC’s order, decision, and denial of reconsideration, and remanded the case for trial on the original charge (Section 5, RA 9165). It held that prosecutorial consent is a condition sine qua non for plea bargaining in drugs cases and that the lesser offense was not necessarily included in the original charge. The CA also denied Suarez’s reconsideration motion.
Petition for Review
Suarez petitioned the Supreme Court to reverse the CA, arguing that acceptance of plea bargaining lies within the trial court’s sound discretion, independent of prosecutorial consent, and that a remand for trial on the original charge would violate his double jeopardy rights, given his valid conviction under Section 12.
Supreme Court Analysis
Applying the 1987 Constitution and People v. Montierro alongside the Plea Bargaining Framework in Drugs Cases, the Court reiterated that:
- Plea bargaining must be initiated by written motion and the lesser offense must necessarily be included in the original charge.
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 268672)
Facts of the Case
- On March 20, 2019, along Ziga Avenue, Basud, Tabaco City, Albay, Vicente Suarez Jr. y Banua was alleged to have sold and delivered to a poseur buyer a heat-sealed plastic sachet containing 2.1585 grams of methamphetamine hydrochloride (“shabu”)
- The incident took place without any authorization by law to sell, deliver, transport, distribute, or give away dangerous drugs
- A warrantless buy-bust operation was conducted, and the police seized the sachet marked “EBB 3/20/19 1”
Procedural History
- May 27, 2019: Information filed charging petitioner with violation of Article II, Section 5 of Republic Act No. 9165 (illegal sale of dangerous drugs)
- September 21, 2019: Petitioner pleaded not guilty to the original charge
- August 3, 2020: Petitioner filed a motion to enter a plea of guilty to the lesser offense of violation of Article II, Section 12 of Republic Act No. 9165 (possession of drug paraphernalia)
- The prosecution opposed, arguing that plea bargaining under RA 9165 requires the concurrence of the public prosecutor and the arresting officers, and that the evidence supported conviction for the original crime
Ruling of the Regional Trial Court
- September 14, 2020 Order: Trial court granted petitioner’s motion to plead guilty to the lesser offense despite prosecution’s objection
- Rearraignment: Petitioner, assisted by counsel, pleaded guilty to violation of Article II, Section 12 of RA 9165
- October 1, 2020 Decision: Petitioner found guilty of possession of paraphernalia; meted an indeterminate sentence of two to four years and a fine of ₱10,000
- Probation Conditions:
- Submission to a Risk Assessment Program and appropriate rehabilitation/intervention
- Cooperation with anti-drug campaigns and service as a resource speaker on drug prevention
- Abstention from illegal activities, especially drug-related, an