The Supreme Court (SC) has issued new guidelines that enhanced and clarified plea bargaining in illegal drugs cases where an accused seeks to plead guilty to a lesser offense for a lighter penalty.

The SC said a move to plea bargain, which should be done through a proper pleading, is not a right demandable by an accused in an illegal drugs case “but is a matter addressed entirely to the sound discretion of the court.”

Plea bargaining, although agreed upon by the prosecution and the accused, does not mean that “the courts will automatically approve the proposal,” it said.

“Judges must still exercise sound discretion in granting or denying plea bargaining, taking into account the relevant circumstances, including the character of the accused,” it stressed.

The new guidelines pointed out that “if an accused applies for probation in offenses punishable under RA No. 9165 (Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002), other than for illegal drug trafficking or pushing under Section 5 in relation to Section 24 thereof, then the law on probation shall apply.”

The new guidelines were contained in a full court decision that resolved the petitions filed by government lawyers and an accused in an illegal drugs case.

Also resolved in the decision written by Associate Justice Alfredo Benjamin S. Caguioa were the letter of the Philippine Judges Association (PJA) and the memorandum to the SC by then Court Administrator Jose Midas P. Marquez, now an associate justice of the SC.

In 2017, Cypher P. Baldadera was charged before the Naga City regional trial court (RTC) with violation of Section 5 (Sale), Article II of RA 9165. He reportedly sold 0.048 gram of shabu to law enforcers.

Also in 2017, Erick V. Montierro was charged before the RTC with violation of Section 5, Article II of RA 9165. He was arrested for allegedly selling 0.721 gram of shabu, also in Naga City.

Both accused moved for plea bargaining in their cases. Despite the opposition of the prosecution, the RTC granted Montierro’s plea bargaining. The trial court’s decision was affirmed by the Court of Appeals (CA) prompting government lawyers to elevate the issue to the SC.

In the case of Baldadera, while the RTC granted his plea bargaining the CA reversed the trial court’s ruling. He appealed the CA’s decision before the SC.

During the pendency of the two cases before the RTC, the SC issued a decision on Aug. 15, 2017 that declared Section 23 of RA 9165 unconstitutional as it declared that plea bargaining is permitted in drugs cases.

On Nov. 21, 2017, the Department of Justice (DOJ) issued Department Circular No. 61 which prohibited plea bargaining for violations of Section 5 of RA No. 9165 or in cases of illegal sale of dangerous drugs regardless of its quantity.

On April 10, 2018, pursuant to its rule-making power under the 1987 Constitution, the Court promulgated the Plea Bargaining Framework in Drugs Cases.

Under the plea bargaining framework, “an accused charged with violation of Section 5 of RA No. 9165 is allowed to plea bargain only when the quantity involved is 0.01 gram to 0.99 gram of methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu, and for which, the acceptable plea bargain is Section 12 of RA No. 9165 or illegal possession of equipment, instrument, apparatus and other paraphernalia for dangerous drugs punishable by six ( 6) months and one (1) day to four ( 4) years and a fine ranging from Pl 0,000 to P50,000.”

On June 26, 2018, the DOJ issued Circular No. 27 which amended its Circular No. 61. DOJ Circular No. 27 states that “for the charge under Section 5 of RA No. 9165, the acceptable plea bargain is the offense under Section 11, paragraph 3 or illegal possession of dangerous drugs with an indeterminate penalty of twelve (12) years and one (1) day to twenty (20) years and a fine from P300,000 to P400,000.”

On May 10, 2022, the DOJ issued Circular No. 18 which amended DOJ Circular No. 27 to conform to the SC’s Plea Bargaining Framework in Drugs Cases.

In resolving the issues, the SC issued the new guidelines to enhance and clarify plea bargaining in illegal drugs case. The guidelines have been circularized to all RTCs in the country by Court Administrator Raul B. Villanueva. These are:

“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 above, 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.”

“At the very outset, the Court takes judicial notice of DOJ Department Circular No. 18 dated May 10, 2022 (DOJ Circular No. 18), which took effect on the same date. It appears that DOJ Circular No. 18 amended DOJ Circular No. 27 to conform to the Court-issued Plea Bargaining Framework in Drugs Cases.

“With the amendments introduced in DOJ Circular No. 18, the prosecution's objection to Montierro and Baldadera's plea bargaining proposals, which was based solely on DOJ Circular No. 27, can now be considered as effectively withdrawn. As such, the issues of whether the RTC erred in declaring DOJ Circulars No. 61 and 27 invalid and overruling the prosecution's continuing objection to Montierro and Baldadera's plea bargaining proposals are now rendered moot and academic.”

Explaining the adoption of plea bargaining in criminal cases, including illegal drugs cases, the SC said:

“The basic premise for the adoption of plea bargaining in our jurisdiction is the furtherance of the constitutionally guaranteed right to speedy disposition of cases, which benefits not only the accused but the State and the offended party as well.

“It is towards the provision of a simplified and inexpensive procedure for the speedy disposition of cases in all courts that the rules on plea bargaining was introduced. As a way of disposing criminal charges by agreement of the parties, plea bargaining is considered to be an ‘important,’ ‘essential,’ ‘highly desirable,’ and ‘legitimate’ component of the administration of justice.

“Undeniably, plea bargaining in criminal cases is an essential component of the administration of justice. An accused enters into a plea bargaining agreement by admitting his/her guilt with the hope of securing a more lenient punishment, and possibly probation, should the offer be accepted and approved by the court.

“As such, the tedious process and protracted trial is shortened and the accused is promptly given a chance at rehabilitation, redemption and reintegration to society.

“In the same way, plea bargaining benefits the State as the prosecution secures a final conviction with very minimal to nil use of its time and resources. Plea bargaining in criminal cases is clearly a procedural mechanism geared towards promoting an efficient, inexpensive and speedy disposition of cases.”

TAGS: #SC #Illegal Drugs cases #Plea bargaining