G.R. No. 224708, October 02, 2019
Noel Fernandez y Villegas and Andrew Plata y Sumatra, Petitioners, v. People of the Philippines, Respondent.

FACTS

Petitioners Noel Fernandez and Andrew Plata were found guilty beyond reasonable doubt by the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of illegal possession of 0.03 gram of shabu each, a violation of Section 11, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165. They were each sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of twelve (12) years and one (1) day as minimum to fourteen (14) years as maximum and a fine of P400,000.00. The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC’s judgment. The Supreme Court, in a Resolution dated August 3, 2016, denied their Petition for Review on Certiorari, and a subsequent Motion for Reconsideration was denied with finality on March 27, 2017, making the judgment final and executory. Subsequently, on January 11, 2019, the petitioners filed a Manifestation seeking a reduction of their penalty of imprisonment. They based their request on the Supreme Court’s issuance of a plea bargaining framework in A.M. No. 18-03-16-SC (dated April 10, 2018), which allows plea bargaining in drugs cases, arguing that at the time of their trial, plea bargaining was still prohibited. They sought the application of this framework to reduce their sentence without entering a plea of guilty to a lesser offense.

ISSUE

Whether the penalty of imprisonment imposed on petitioners Noel Fernandez and Andrew Plata may be reduced pursuant to the plea bargaining framework adopted in A.M. No. 18-03-16-SC, absent a plea of guilty to a lesser offense.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court denied the petitioners’ plea for the reduction of their penalty. The Court held that the reduction of penalty is a consequence of a plea negotiation, which requires a plea of guilty to a lesser offense. The basic requisites of plea bargaining are: (1) consent of the offended party; (2) consent of the prosecutor; (3) a plea of guilty to a lesser offense which is necessarily included in the offense charged; and (4) approval of the court. The requirement of a plea offer is crucial; without it, there is no plea bargain to speak of and no basis for a sentence reduction under the plea bargaining framework. The petitioners merely sought a penalty reduction based on the issuance of the new framework but did not offer a categorical and unqualified plea of guilty to a lesser offense. Since their conviction for illegal possession of dangerous drugs under Section 11 of R.A. No. 9165 had already become final and executory, and they did not plead guilty to a lesser offense, they must serve the penalty originally imposed by the RTC. The Manifestation was therefore denied.