G.R. No. 242722 . October 10, 2022.
CARLOS CEREZA, ROGER ESTOLONILLO, RAYMUNDO LOPEZ, YOLANDA PASCUAL, MERLY ANN MONTES, AND MAY ANN VILLA, PETITIONERS, VS. HON. DANILO V. SUAREZ, PRESIDING JUDGE, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF PARAÑAQUE CITY, BRANCH 259, AND PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENTS.

FACTS

Petitioners were charged with violation of Section 13 (Possession of Dangerous Drugs During Parties, Social Gatherings or Meetings) of Republic Act No. 9165 , a non-bailable offense punishable by life imprisonment. They initially pleaded not guilty. Invoking the Supreme Court’s ruling in Estipona v. Lobrigo, which declared the prohibition against plea bargaining in drug cases unconstitutional, petitioners filed a Motion to Withdraw Plea. They sought to plead guilty to the lesser offense of Use of Dangerous Drugs under Section 12, as provided in the Court’s plea bargaining framework under A.M. No. 18-03-16-SC.
The Regional Trial Court (RTC) granted the motion to withdraw plea but, relying on Department of Justice (DOJ) Circular No. 027, allowed petitioners to plead guilty to the lesser offense of Possession of Dangerous Drugs under Section 11(3) of R.A. No. 9165 , which carries a heavier penalty of 12 years and one day to 20 years imprisonment. The RTC justified this by noting that A.M. No. 18-03-16-SC explicitly excludes violations of Section 13 from plea bargaining, while DOJ Circular No. 027, issued later, permits it. Petitioners’ partial motion for reconsideration was denied, prompting them to file a Petition for Certiorari directly with the Supreme Court.

ISSUE

Whether the Regional Trial Court committed grave abuse of discretion in applying DOJ Circular No. 027 to allow a plea bargain to a more severe offense than that permitted under the Supreme Court’s own plea bargaining framework.

RULING

Yes, the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion. The Supreme Court emphasized that the power to promulgate rules of procedure is exclusively vested in the Judiciary. While the prosecution may propose plea bargains, the guidelines for plea bargaining in drugs cases are solely within the Supreme Court’s rule-making authority. DOJ Circular No. 027, being an executive issuance, cannot amend, supplant, or prevail over the Court’s rules, specifically A.M. No. 18-03-16-SC and its subsequent amendment in A.M. No. 21-07-16-SC (Montierro guidelines).
The legal logic is clear: the judicial framework is controlling. A.M. No. 21-07-16-SC explicitly provides that an accused charged under Section 13 may be allowed to plead guilty to Section 12 (Use of Drugs), provided they undergo a drug dependency examination and other conditions are met. The RTC’s application of DOJ Circular No. 027 to authorize a plea to Section 11(3)—a more serious offense with a higher penalty than Section 12—was a capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment. It disregarded the Court-mandated framework designed to ensure a uniform and constitutionally sound plea bargaining process. Consequently, the assailed Orders were set aside. The case was remanded to the RTC to evaluate petitioners’ plea bargaining proposal strictly in accordance with the Montierro guidelines.