INTING, J.:
Respondent was charged with: (a) selling one heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet containing 0.0416 grams of white crystalline substance; and (b) possessing two heat-sealed transparent sachets containing 0.0694 grams of white crystalline substance which were later confirmed to be shabu.[10]Criminal Case No. R-TAC-15-00331-CR
That on or about the 23rd day of September 2015 in the City of Tacloban, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, without any lawful authority did then and there willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously sell and deliver one (1) piece heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance. "shabu", a dangerous drug weighing 0.0416 gram, to poseur-buyer IO1 SILAS S. AURELIA, a member of the PDEA, in exchange of two (2) pieces five hundred peso bills with serial numbers WH107980 and DY517709, marked money.
Contrary to law.[8]Criminal Case No. R-TAC-15-00332-CR
That on or about the 23rd day of September 2015 in the City of Tacloban, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, without any lawful authority did then and there willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously have in his possession and control two (2) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachets containing white crystalline substance known as shabu weighing a total of 0.0694 gram, a dangerous drug.
Contrary to law.[9]
WHEREFORE, over the vehement objection of the prosecution, the court finds the plea-bargaining to be in accord with [the] rationale of the law and the wisdom of A.M. No. 18-03-16-SC. Consequently, the plea-bargaining is approve[d] subject to the following conditions, to wit:The public prosecutor filed a Motion for Reconsideration,[20] but the RTC denied it in its Order[21] dated August 30, 2018. Consequently, the People, represented by the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), filed a Petition for Certiorari[22] under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court before the CA asserting that the RTC gravely abused its discretion in approving respondent's motion to plea bargain.
a. The accused shall undergo [drug dependency examination (DDE)] at the [Eastern Visayas Regional Medical Center]. The latter to submit a report on it thereafter. The Jail Warden of BJMP is directed to bring the accused to such facility for the requisite examination before the next hearing;
b. Depending on the result of the DDE, the accused shall undergo rehabilitation, whether out of patient or in house as recommended or counseling if the accused turns out negative for drug dependency.
Let, therefore, the accused be re-arraigned on January 22, 2019 at 8:30 o'clock in the morning under the original Informations qualified by the approved lesser offenses as plea bargained. Counsels are notified in open court. Accused to be brought along by the jail warden on said date. Silas Aurelia is likewise notified.
SO ORDERED.[19]
WHEREFORE, for want of merit, the Court RESOLYES to DISMISS the following petitions:The CA pointed out that the power and authority to promulgate the rules of procedure is lodged exclusively with the Supreme Court. It cited OCA Circular No. 80-2019[25] which stresses that plea bargaining is always addressed to the sound discretion of the judge, guided by the Court's issuances, such as A.M. No. 18-03-16-SC. Thus, it ruled that the RTC did not gravely abuse its discretion when it approved respondent's plea bargain.
x x x x
7. CA-G.R. CEB SP. No. 12227
x x x x
SO ORDERED.[24]
1. Whether the CA seriously erred m disregarding the principles of mutuality and consensuality in plea bargaining agreements.
2. Whether the approval of the plea bargaining agreement over the objection of the prosecution violated petitioner's right to procedural due process.
This notwithstanding, in the recent case of Sayre v. Xenos (Sayre), the Court ruled in favor of the validity of DOJ Circular No. 27, holding that the same does not contravene the rule-making authority of the Court, viz.:As can be gleaned in Reafor, the prosecution's opposition to the motion to plea bargain of the accused should be treated as a continuing objection that should be resolved by the trial court. The decision to deny or sustain the prosecution's objection to the plea bargaining offer of the accused is still subject to the trial court's sound discretion.
In this petition, A.M. No. 18-03-16-SC is a rule of procedure established pursuant to the rule-making power of the Supreme Court that serves as a framework and guide to the trial courts in plea bargaining violations of [RA] 9165.
Nonetheless, a plea bargain still requires mutual agreement of the parties and remains subject to the approval of the court. The acceptance of an offer to plead guilty to a lesser offense is not demandable by the accused as a matter of right but is a matter addressed entirely to the sound discretion of the trial court.xxx xxx xxx
The use of the word "may" signifies that the trial court has discretion whether to allow the accused to make a plea of guilty to a lesser offense. x x x
Taking into consideration the requirements in pleading guilty to a lesser offense, We find it proper to treat the refusal of the prosecution to adopt the acceptable plea bargain for the charge of Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs provided in A.M. No. 18-03-16-SC as a continuing objection that should be resolved by the RTC. This harmonizes the constitutional provision on the rule-making power of the Court under the Constitution and the nature of plea bargaining in Dangerous Drugs cases. DOJ Circular No. 27 did not repeal, alter or modify the Plea Bargaining Framework in A.M. No. 18-03-16-SC.
x x x x[40] (Emphases and underscoring in the original.)
Finding respondent's plea to be in accordance with DOJ Circular No. 18, A.M. No. 18-03-16-SC, and the above-stated guidelines, the Court finds no reason to reverse and set aside the assailed CA Consolidated Decision.
- Offers for plea bargaining must be initiated in writing by way of a formal written motion filed by the accused in court.
- The lesser offense which the accused proposes to plead guilty to must necessarily be included in the offense charged.
- Upon receipt of the proposal for plea bargaining that is compliant with the provisions of the Plea Bargaining Framework in Drugs Cases, the judge shall order that a drug dependency assessment be administered. If the accused admits drug use, or denies it but is found positive after a drug dependency test, then he/she shall undergo treatment and rehabilitation for a period of not less than six (6) months. Said period shall be credited to his/her penalty and the period of his/her after-care and follow-up program if the penalty is still unserved. If the accused is found negative for drug use/dependency, then he/she will be released on time served, otherwise, he/she will serve his/her sentence in jail minus the counselling period at rehabilitation center.
- As a rule, plea bargaining requires the mutual agreement of the parties and remains subject to the approval of the court. Regardless of the mutual agreement of the parties, the acceptance of the offer to plead guilty to a lesser offense is not demandable by the accused as a matter of right but is a matter addressed entirely to the sound discretion of the court.
- Though the prosecution and the defense may agree to enter into a plea bargain, it does not follow that the courts will automatically approve the proposal. Judges must still exercise sound discretion in granting or denying plea bargaining, taking into account the relevant circumstances, including the character of the accused.
- The court shall not allow plea bargaining if the objection to the plea bargaining is valid and supported by evidence to the effect that:
- the offender is a recidivist, habitual offender, known in the community as a drug addict and a troublemaker, has undergone rehabilitation but had a relapse, or has been charged many times; or
- when the evidence of guilt is strong.
- Plea bargaining in drugs cases shall not be allowed when the proposed plea bargain does not conform to the Court-issued Plea Bargaining Framework in Drugs Cases.
- Judges may overrule the objection of the prosecution if it is based solely on the ground that the accused's plea bargaining proposal is inconsistent with the acceptable plea bargain under any internal rules or guidelines of the DOJ, though in accordance with the plea bargaining framework issued by the Court, if any.
- If the prosecution objects to the accused's plea bargaining proposal due to the circumstances enumerated in item no. 5, the trial court is mandated to hear the prosecution's objection and rule on the merits thereof. If the trial court finds the objection meritorious, it shall order the continuation of the criminal proceedings.
- If an accused applies for probation in offenses punishable under RA No. 9165, other than for illegal drug trafficking or pushing under Section 5 in relation to Section 24 thereof, then the law on probation shall apply.[45]
SECTION 5. Sale, Trading, Administration, Dispensation, Delivery, Distriblllion and Transportation of Dangerous Drugs and/or Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals. — The penalty of life imprisonment to death and a fine ranging from Five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00) to Ten million pesos (P10,000,000.00) shall be imposed upon any person, who, unless authorized by law, shall sell, trade, administer, dispense, deliver, give away to another distribute, dispatch in transit or transport any dangerous drug, including any and all species of opium poppy regardless of the quantity and purity involved, or shall act as a broker in any of such transactions.[5] Section 11 of RA 9165 provides:
SECTION 11. Possession of Dangerous Drugs. — The penalty of life imprisonment to death and a fine ranging from Five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00) to Ten million pesos (P10,000,000.00) shall be imposed upon any person, who, unless authorized by law, shall possess any dangerous drug in the following quantities, regardless of the degree of purity thereof:[6] Section 12 of RA 9165 provides:
x x x x
(3) Imprisonment of twelve (12) years and one (1) day to twenty (20) years and a fine ranging from Three hundred thousand pesos (P300,000.00) to Four hundred thousand pesos (P400,000.00), if the quantities of dangerous drugs are less than five (5) grams of opium, morphine, heroin, cocaine or cocaine hydrochloride, marijuana resin or marijuana resin oil, methamphetamine hydrochloride or "shabu", or other dangerous drugs such as, but not limited to, MOMA or "ecstasy", PMA, TMA, LSD, GHB, and those similarly designed or newly introduced drugs and their derivatives, without having any therapeutic value or if the quantity possessed is far beyond therapeutic requirements; or less than three hundred (300) grams of marijuana.
SECTION 12. Possession of Equipment, Instrument, Apparatus and Other Paraphernalia for Dangerous Drugs. — The penalty of imprisonment ranging from six (6) months and one (1) day to four (4) years and a fine ranging from Ten thousand pesos (P10,000.00) to Fifty thousand pesos (P50,000.00) shall be imposed upon any person, who, unless authorized by law, shall possess or have under his/her control any equipment, instrument, apparatus and other paraphernalia fit or intended for smoking, consuming, administering, injecting, ingesting, or introducing any dangerous drug into the body: Provided, That in the case of medical practitioners and various professionals who are required to carry such equipment, instrument, apparatus and other paraphernalia in the practice of their profession, the Board shall prescribe the necessary implementing guidelines thereof.[7] Rollo, pp. 89-90 and 91-92.
SEC. 2. Plea of guilty to a lesser offense. — At arraignment, the accused, with the consent of the offended party and the prosecutor, may be allowed by the trial court to plead guilty to a lesser offense which is necessarily included in the offense charged. After arraignment but before trial, the accused may still be allowed to plead guilty to said lesser offense after withdrawing his plea of not guilty. No amendment of the complaint or information is necessary.[28] Revised Amended Guidelines on Plea Bargaining for Republic Act No. 9165, Otherwise Known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.
Section 5. The Supreme Court shall have the following powers:Rules of procedure of special courts and quasi-judicial bodies shall remain effective unless disapproved by the Supreme Court.
x x x x
(5) Promulgate rules concerning the protection and enforcement of constitutional rights, pleading, practice, and procedure in all courts, the admission to the practice of law, the integrated bar, and legal assistance to the under-privileged. Such rules shall provide a simplified and inexpensive procedure for the speedy disposition of cases, shall be uniform for all courts of the same grade, and shall not diminish, increase, or modify substantive rights.
SECTION 2. Plea of guilty to a lesser offense. — At arraignment, the accused, with the consent of the offended party and the prosecutor, may be allowed by the trial court to plead guilty to a lesser offense which is necessarily included in the offense charged. After arraignment but before trial, the accused may still be allowed to plead guilty to said lesser offense after withdrawing his plea of not guilty. No amendment of the complaint or information is necessary.[7]Based on the foregoing, the basic requisites of plea bargaining are: (a) consent of the offended party; (b) consent of the prosecutor; (c) plea of guilty to a lesser offense which is necessarily included in the offense charged; and (d) approval of the court.[8] The acceptance of an offer to plead guilty to a lesser offense is not demandable by the accused as a matter of right but is a matter addressed entirely to the sound discretion of the trial court.[9] In fact, the provision highlights the need to arrive at a proposal that is mutually acceptable to the offended party and the public prosecutor.
In this jurisdiction, plea bargaining has been defined as "a process whereby the accused and the prosecution work out a mutually satisfactory disposition of the case subject to court approval." There is give-and-take negotiation common in plea bargaining. The essence of the agreement is that both the prosecution and the defense make concessions to avoid potential losses. Properly administered, plea bargaining is to be encouraged because the chief virtues of the system - speed, economy, and finality - can benefit the accused, the offended party, the prosecution, and the court.In relation thereto, it must be clarified that the power to prosecute crimes chiefly pertains to the Executive Department of the Government, and that the prosecution is given a wide latitude to determine which cases to charge against whom:
Considering the presence of mutuality of advantage, the rules on plea bargaining neither create a right nor take away a vested right. Instead, it operates as a means to implement an existing right by regulating the judicial process for enforcing rights and duties recognized by substantive law and for justly administering remedy and redress for a disregard or infraction of them.
The decision to plead guilty is often heavily influenced by the defendant's appraisal of the prosecution's case against him and by the apparent likelihood of securing leniency should a guilty plea be offered and accepted. In any case, whether it be to the offense charged or to a lesser crime, a guilty plea is a "serious and sobering occasion" inasmuch as it constitutes a waiver of the fundamental rights to be presumed innocent until the contrary is proved, to be heard by himself and counsel, to meet the witnesses face to face, to bail (except those charged with offenses punishable by reclusion perpetua when evidence of guilt is strong), to be convicted by proof beyond reasonable doubt, and not to be compelled to be a witness against himself.
Yet a defendant has no constitutional right to plea bargain. No basic rights are infringed by trying him rather than accepting a plea of guilty; the prosecutor need not do so if he prefers to go to trial. 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. The reason for this is that the prosecutor has full control of the prosecution of criminal actions; his duty is to always prosecute the proper offense, not any lesser or graver one, based on what the evidence on hand can sustain.[14]
The prosecution of crimes pertains to the Executive Department of the Government whose principal power and responsibility are to see to it that our laws are faithfully executed. A necessary component of the power to execute our laws is the right to prosecute their violators. The right to prosecute vests the public prosecutors with a wide range of discretion – the discretion of what and whom to charge, the exercise of which depends on a smorgasbord of factors that are best appreciated by the public prosecutors.While it is true that plea bargaining in criminal cases is a rule of procedure which falls within the Court's exclusive domain,[16] the Court must strike a balance between the exercise of its judicial power and exhibiting deference towards the exercise of prosecutorial discretion. Prosecutorial discretion must necessarily include autonomy to decide whether to consent to a plea bargain. As explained by the Court in Estipona:
The public prosecutors are solely responsible for the determination of the amount of evidence sufficient to establish probable cause to justify the filing of appropriate criminal charges against a respondent. Theirs is also the quasi-judicial discretion to determine whether or not criminal cases should be filed in court.[15]
[Courts] normally must defer to prosecutorial decisions as to whom to prosecute. The reasons for judicial deference are well known. Prosecutorial charging decisions are rarely simple. In addition to assessing the strength and importance of a case, prosecutors also must consider other tangible and intangible factors, such as government enforcement priorities. Finally, they also must decide how best to allocate the scarce resources of a criminal justice system that simply cannot accommodate the litigation of every serious criminal charge. Because these decisions "are not readily susceptible to the kind of analysis the courts are competent to undertake," we have been "properly hesitant to examine the decision whether to prosecute."Where the prosecution does not consent to the proposal to plea bargain, the Court in Sayre v. Hon. Xenos[18] clarified that the same shall be treated as a continuing objection that must be resolved by the trial court.[19]
The plea is further addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court, which may allow the accused to plead guilty to a lesser offense which is necessarily included in the offense charged. The word may denotes an exercise of discretion upon the trial court on whether to allow the accused to make such plea. Trial courts are exhorted to keep in mind that a plea of guilty for a lighter offense than that actually charged is not supposed to be allowed as a matter of bargaining or compromise for the convenience of the accused.[17]
"Nonetheless, a plea bargain still requires mutual agreement of the parties and remains subject to the approval of the court. The acceptance of an offer to plead guilty to a lesser offense is not demandable by the accused as a matter of right but is a matter addressed entirely to the sound discretion of the trial court.The indispensable nature of the prosecution's conformity to the accused's proposal for a plea bargain cannot be overemphasized. If a mutual agreement between the prosecutor and the accused cannot be reached, a valid proposal to plea bargain cannot be submitted for resolution of the court. Absent a valid plea bargain, the issue of whether the plea bargaining proposal must be accepted and whether judgment should be rendered on the basis thereof never arises. The Court thus remains bound to resolve the issues presented prior to the filing of the offer of plea bargain, and the continuation of the trial proceedings is imperative.
x x x.
The use of the word 'may' signifies that the trial court has discretion whether to allow the accused to make a plea of guilty to a lesser offense. Moreover, plea bargaining requires the consent of the accused, offended party, and the prosecutor. It is also essential that the lesser offense is necessarily included in the offense charged.
Taking into consideration the requirements in pleading guilty to a lesser offense, We find it proper to treat the refusal of the prosecution to adopt the acceptable plea bargain for the charge of Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs provided in A.M. No. 18-03-16-SC as a continuing objection that should be resolved by the RTC. This harmonizes the constitutional provision on the rule-making power of the Court under the Constitution and the nature of plea bargaining in Dangerous Drugs cases. DOJ Circular No. 27 did not repeal, alter, or modify the Plea Bargaining Framework in A.M. No. 18-03-16-SC."[20]