GR 249459; (June, 2021) (Digest)
G.R. No. 249459 , June 14, 2021
People of the Philippines, Petitioner, vs. Noel Sabater y Ulan, Respondent.
FACTS
Respondent Noel Sabater y Ulan was charged with violation of Section 5 of Republic Act No. 9165 (Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs) for selling 0.049 gram of shabu. After arraignment and during trial, he filed a motion for plea bargaining, proposing to plead guilty to the lesser offense of violation of Section 12, RA 9165 (Possession of Equipment, Instrument, Apparatus and Other Paraphernalia for Dangerous Drugs), citing A.M. No. 18-03-16-SC (Plea Bargaining Framework in Drugs Cases). The prosecution opposed, citing DOJ Circular No. 027, which stated that an accused charged with selling less than five grams of shabu may plead guilty to illegal possession under Section 11(3), not Section 12. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) granted respondent’s motion, declared DOJ Circular No. 027 contrary to the Rules of Court and an encroachment on the Supreme Court’s rule-making power, re-arraigned respondent, and convicted him of violation of Section 12. The People, through the OSG, filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA), which dismissed it for late filing, counting the 60-day period from the prosecution’s receipt of the RTC’s Order granting the plea bargain. The CA denied reconsideration.
ISSUE
1. Whether the Court of Appeals committed reversible error in dismissing the petition for certiorari for belated filing.
2. Whether the trial court committed grave abuse of discretion in granting respondent’s plea bargaining proposal without the prosecution’s consent and over its objection.
3. Whether the trial court committed grave abuse of discretion in declaring DOJ Circular No. 027 an encroachment on the Court’s rule-making power.
RULING
1. Yes, the CA committed reversible error. The 60-day period to file a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 should be reckoned from the prosecution’s receipt of the RTC’s Judgment of conviction (dated September 12, 2018), not from the Order granting the plea bargain (dated August 2, 2018). The judgment is the definitive adjudication that aggrieved the State. Thus, the petition was filed on time.
2. Yes, the trial court committed grave abuse of discretion. Plea bargaining requires mutual agreement between the prosecution and the defense. The trial court cannot impose a plea bargain over the objection of the prosecution, as this encroaches on the executive’s power to prosecute crimes. The prosecution’s refusal to consent to a plea bargain to Section 12 from a Section 5 charge was within its discretion.
3. Yes, the trial court committed grave abuse of discretion. DOJ Circular No. 027 is an internal guideline for prosecutors on when to give consent to proposed plea bargains. It does not repeal, alter, or modify the Supreme Court’s Plea Bargaining Framework (A.M. No. 18-03-16-SC) and therefore is not an encroachment on the Court’s rule-making power. The trial court should have harmonized the issuances.
The Supreme Court GRANTED the petition. It REVERSED and SET ASIDE the CA Resolutions. The RTC Judgment and concomitant orders were declared VOID for having been issued in grave abuse of discretion. The trial court was ORDERED to proceed with the criminal case for violation of Section 5, RA 9165 against respondent with dispatch.