In illegal drugs cases, can a trial court allow and grant the guilty plea of an accused to a lesser offense for a lighter penalty without the consent and approval of the prosecution?
No, the Supreme Court (SC) reiterated in a decision made public last Aug. 25.
The SC said:
“Verily, the consent of the prosecutor is a condition precedent before an accused may validly plead guilty to a lesser offense.
“Where the prosecution withholds its consent, the trial court cannot proceed to approve a plea bargain. There is no meeting of the minds, hence, there can be no plea bargaining ‘agreement’ to speak of.
“Should the trial court nevertheless approve the plea bargain over the prosecution's objection, it would be doing so in grave abuse of discretion.”
With the ruling, the SC granted the petition of the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) and remanded the case of Noel U. Sabater to the Naga City regional trial court (RTC) which was ordered to proceed with the criminal case “with utmost dispatch.
The SC decision was written by Associate Justice Amy C. Lazaro Javier and concurred in by Senior Associate Justice Estela M. Perlas Bernabe and Associate Justices Mario V. Lopez, Ricardo R. Rosario and Jhosep Y. Lopez.
Case records showed that Sabater was arrested on Nov. 4, 2016 in a buy-bust operation conducted by the police in Naga City. He sold to a policeman 0.049 grams of shabu.
Sabater was charged with violation of Section 5 (on sale of illegal drugs) of Republic Act No. 9165, the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act.
When arraigned by the Naga City RTC, he pleaded not guilty.
But five months after the prosecution had formally offered it evidence, Sabater filed a motion for plea bargaining (“a process of negotiation between the prosecution and the defense in a criminal case whereby the accused, in return for leniency or a lighter sentence, agrees to plead guilty to a lesser offense”).
Instead of violation of Section 5 (sale) of RA 9165, Sabater wanted to enter a plea of guilty to a lesser offense of violation of Section 12 (possession of equipment, instrument, apparatus and other paraphernalia for dangerous drugs).
Under Section 5 of RA 9165, maximum penalty is life imprisonment, while under Section 12, the jail term ranges from six months and one day to four years.
The prosecution opposed the plea and cited Department of Justice (DOJ) Circular No. 027 which states that when an accused is charged with selling less than five grams of shabu, he or she may plead guilty to a lesser offense of illegal possession of dangerous drugs under Section 11(3) of RA 9165. Jail term for violation of Section 11 is higher than that imposed for Section 12.
On Aug. 2, 2018, the trial court granted Sabater’s plea. It vacated his plea of not guilty to Section 5 and accepted his plea of guilty to Section 12.
On Sept. 12, 2018, the trial court handed its decision sentencing Sabater to a prison term ranging from six months and one day to a maximum of four years with a fine of P50,000. He was also credited with the period of his preventive detention.
The prosecution, through the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) elevated the issue before the Court of Appeals (CA) which dismissed the petition for late filing. It elevated the issue before the SC.
The OSG told the SC that the CA should have resolved its petition on the merits rather than dismissing it on technicality.
On the merits, the OSG faulted the CA for sustaining Sabater’s plea bargaining proposal despite the apparent lack of consent and over the vigorous opposition of the prosecutor.
It also told the SC that when the trial court granted Sabater’s motion for plea bargaining despite the prosecution's objection, the trial court effectively encroached upon the government's prerogative to prosecute crimes.
Resolving the issue, the SC said:
“Here, the trial court acted with grave abuse of discretion or without jurisdiction when despite the vehement objection of the prosecution, it peremptorily, in clear violation of Section 2, Rule 116 of the Rules of Court, approved respondent's (Sabater’s) proposal to plead guilty to the lesser offense of violation of Section 12, RA 9165, in lieu of the original charge of violation of Section 5 of the same law.
“Otherwise stated, the trial court acted without or beyond its jurisdiction when it rendered the assailed Judgment dated September 12, 2018.”
Section 2, Rule 116 of the Rules of Court states that “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.”
Citing previous rulings, the SC said: “Void judgments produce ‘no legal binding effect.’ Hence, they are deemed non-existent. They may result from the "lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter" or a lack of jurisdiction over the person of either of the parties. They may also arise if they were rendered with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.”
Thus, the SC said “the Judgment dated Sept. 12, 2018 is void, ineffectual, and could never lapse into finality.
“ACCORDINGLY, the petition is GRANTED. The Resolutions dated Jan. 28, 2019 and Sept. 17, 2019 in CA-G.R. SP. No. 158342 are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The Judgment dated Sept. 12, 2018 and the concomitant orders of the Regional Trial Court-Branch 24, Naga City in Criminal Case No. 2016-0935 are VOID for having been issued in grave abuse of discretion. The trial court is ORDERED to proceed with the criminal case against respondent Noel Sabater y Ulan with utmost dispatch. SO ORDERED.”