With many lower courts engulfed in confusion, the Supreme Court (SC) has made it categorical: Drug suspects cannot plead guilty to a lesser offense without the consent of the prosecution and court orders granting such plea bargains are void.
In a 7-page decision on G.R. No. 247575, the SC 2nd Division annulled the August 24, 2018 order of the Naga City Regional Trial Court (RTC) Branch 24 granting the motion of Edwin Reafor to plea bargain over the opposition of the prosecution.
The SC also annulled the September 6, 2018 judgment of the RTC convicting Reafor after he pleaded guilty to the lesser offense of possession of paraphernalia, punishable by 12 to 20 years in prison and a fine of P300,000 to P400,000.
The SC remanded the case back to the trial court for further proceedings on Reafor’s original charge of selling two sachets containing 0.149 gram of shabu, punishable by life imprisonment and a fine of P500,000 to P10 million.
The case reached the SC as the Court of Appeals (CA) in a December 17, 2018 resolution threw out the prosecution’s petition due to “several procedural infirmities,” such as the failure to file a motion for reconsideration (MR) before the RTC and the belated filing of the petition before the CA.
But, the SC said the CA should have disregarded these lapses because this was a “clearly meritorious” case where “the higher demands of substantial justice must transcend rigid observance of procedural rules.”
It stressed that “a defendant has no constitutional right to plea bargain,” and a prosecutor does not need to accept the offer to plea guilty to a lesser offense if he prefers to go to trial and prosecute the proper offense based on the available evidence.
“Under the present Rules, the acceptance of an offer to plead guilty is not a demandable right but depends on the consent of the offended party and the prosecutor, which is a condition precedent to a valid plea of guilty to a lesser offense that is necessarily included in the offense charged,” read the decision penned by Senior Associate Justice Estela Perlas-Bernabe.
The SC added that in its February 18, 2020 decision in Sayre versus Xenos, it already upheld the validity of Department of Justice (DOJ) Circular Number 27, which mandates prosecutors to reject plea bargain proposals in certain serious drug cases and continue with the proceedings.
This naturally means that the prosecution cannot give the consent required for the approval of a plea bargaining offer.
“The continuing objection on the part of the prosecution based on DOJ Circular No. 27 will necessarily result in the parties’ failure to arrive at a mutually satisfactory disposition of the case that may be submitted for the trial court’s approval. In light of the absence of a mutual agreement to plea bargain, the proper course of action would be the continuation of the proceedings,” the SC said.
Thus, in Reafor’s case, the SC said his plea bargaining was void for lack of consent of the prosecution.
“Since the judgment of conviction rendered against respondent is void, it is only proper to resume with the trial of Criminal Case No. 2017-0053—which prior to respondent’s filing of his motion to plea bargain was at the stage of the prosecution’s presentation of evidence, without violating respondent’s right against double jeopardy,” the SC concluded.
Now-Chief Justice Alexander Gesmundo, and Associate Justices Amy Lazaro-Javier, Mario Lopez and Ricardo Rosario concurred in the decision.
The Supreme Court on Friday issued guidelines for plea bargaining involving illegal drugs cases.
In Plea Bargaining Network, there shall be no plea bargaining in cases where the penalty is life imprisonment or life imprisonment to death.
Furthermore, the SC disclosed that there is no plea bargaining under Section 5 of Republic Act 9165 or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act, which penalizes sale, trading, administration, dispensation, delivery, distribution and transportation of all kinds of dangerous drugs.
Under the new framework, only those charged with violation of Section 11 of RA 9165 for possession of illegal drugs where the quantity is less than five grams (in case of shabu, opium, morphine, heroin and cocaine, and less than 300 grams in case of marijuana) with a penalty of 12 years and one day to 20 years in prison and a fine ranging from P300,000 to P400,000 can plea bargain to violation of Section 12 that carries a penalty of six months and one day to four years in prison and a fine ranging from P10,000 to P50,000.
Also the SC mandated that a drug dependency test is required to all cases regardless of the penalty.
“If accused admits drug use, or denies it but is found positive after drug dependency test, he/she shall undergo treatment rehabilitation for a period of not less than six month,” the high court said.
On the other hand, if the accused is charged with possession of shabu, opium, morphine, heroin, and cocaine of more than five grams but not exceeding 10 grams, or with marijuana of 300 grams but not more than 500 grams (Section 11), the accused can enter into a plea bargain to violation of Section 11 (less than five grams in case of shabu, etc. and less than 300 grams of marijuana) to lower the penalty from 20 years to life imprisonment and fine ranging from P400,000 to P500,000, to 12 years and one day to 20 years prison term and fine ranging from P300,000 to P400,000.
If an accused is charged with possession of equipment, apparatus and other paraphernalia for dangerous drugs under Section 12, he or she can plea bargain to violation of Section 15 or use of dangerous drugs to lessen the penalty from six months and one day to four years in prison and fine from P10,000 to P50,000, to six months treatment and rehabilitation if he or she admits drug use or is found positive after drug use/dependency test.
For violation of Section 14 for possession of equipment, apparatus and other paraphernalia for dangerous drugs during parties, social gatherings or meeting, he or she can plea bargain to violation of Section 15 on use of dangerous drugs to lower the penalty from a maximum or four months in prison to six months of treatment and rehabilitation.
The guidelines was issued following its ruling in the case of Salvador Estipona versus Legaspi City Regional Trial Court (RTC) Branch 3 Judge Frank Lobrigo where SC declared as unconstitutional the prohibition against plea bargaining in Republic Act 9165.
Source: this post
The Supreme Court (SC) on Tuesday stood pat on its decision allowing plea bargaining in drug cases.
At a press conference, SC spokesperson Theodore Te said the Court denied with finality the motion for reconsideration to the August 15 decision voiding the provision that bars plea bargaining under the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002 (Republic Act 9165).
The decision stemmed from a petition filed in September last year by detainee Salvador Estipona Jr. who is facing a case for possession of 0.084 grams of shabu, a crime punishable under Section 11 of RA 9165.
He filed a plea bargain motion but this was denied by Judge Frank Librogo of Legazpi City Regional Trial Court Branch 3, citing Section 23 of RA 9165 as basis.
Represented by the Public Attorney’s Office (PAO), Estipona told the high court that Section 23 violated the equal protection of the law and encroached upon the power of the SC to promulgate rules of procedure in criminal cases.
Voting unanimously, the SC declared Section 23 of RA 9165 unconstitutional on the ground that the high court has the exclusive power to regulate procedural rules, including plea bargaining.
Plea bargaining does not automatically mean the accused will be sentenced to a lesser offense as the plea is subject to the concurrence of the prosecution and is only allowed upon the discretion of the court.
“The ruling on the motion must disclose the strength or weakness of the prosecution’s evidence. Absent any finding on the weight of the evidence on hand, the judge’s acceptance of the defendant’s change of plea is improper and irregular,” the SC said
Oh My Kwento!!!! 