G.R. No. 254564/G.R. No. 254974/A.M. No. 21-07-16-SC/A.M. No. 18-03-16-SC, July 26, 2022
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PETITIONER, VS. ERICK MONTIERRO Y VENTOCILLA, RESPONDENT. [G.R. No. 254974] CYPHER BALDADERA Y PELAGIO, PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT. [A.M. No. 21-07-16-SC] RE: LETTER OF THE PHILIPPINE JUDGES ASSOCIATION EXPRESSING ITS CONCERN OVER THE RAMIFICATIONS OF THE DECISIONS IN G.R. NO. 247575 AND G.R. NO. 250295 [A.M. No. 18-03-16-SC] RE: LETTER OF ASSOCIATE JUSTICE DIOSDADO M. PERALTA ON THE SUGGESTED PLEA BARGAINING FRAMEWORK SUBMITTED BY THE PHILIPPINE JUDGES ASSOCIATION

FACTS

These consolidated cases involve the plea bargaining proposals of accused Erick Montierro and Cypher Baldadera in their respective prosecutions under Republic Act No. 9165, the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002. The trial courts approved their proposals over the continuing objections of the prosecution. The prosecution elevated the matter, arguing the trial courts erred. During the pendency of these cases, the Department of Justice (DOJ) issued Department Circular No. 18, which revised the guidelines for plea bargaining in drug cases. The proposals of Montierro and Baldadera were found to be consistent with these new guidelines.

ISSUE

The primary issue is whether the cases have been rendered moot by DOJ Circular No. 18 and, if so, what the proper procedural disposition should be. A secondary, substantive issue concerns the proper judicial guidelines for plea bargaining in drug cases and the respective roles of the prosecution and the judiciary.

RULING

Justice Kho, in his Separate Concurring and Dissenting Opinion, concurred with the ponencia that the cases were moot and academic. Since the accused’s plea proposals aligned with the new DOJ Circular, the prosecution’s objections were deemed effectively withdrawn. He agreed the drug cases should be remanded to the trial courts. The prosecution must be allowed to re-evaluate the proposals under the new guidelines, and the courts must then rule based on compliance with Section 2, Rule 116 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure. Justice Kho emphasized that trial courts should not approve plea bargains over a prosecution’s continuing objection without first resolving that objection on its merits.
However, Justice Kho dissented from the majority’s prescribed guidelines for plea bargaining. He traced the origin of plea bargaining as a contractual, prosecutorial tool born from mutual advantage for the state and the accused, conserving judicial resources. He argued that while the judiciary has the constitutional duty to promulgate procedural rules, plea bargaining is fundamentally an executive function, part of the President’s control over the prosecution and the faithful execution of laws. The prosecution possesses the principal discretion to determine whether a plea bargain serves the public interest. The court’s role is to ensure the plea is voluntary, intelligent, and with the consent of the offended party and prosecutor, not to supplant the prosecution’s evaluative judgment. Thus, he contended that judicial guidelines should not unduly restrict this executive prerogative.