G.R. No. 250979. January 11, 2023.
People of the Philippines, Petitioner, vs. Rene Esma y Joven, Respondent.

FACTS

Respondent Rene Esma y Joven was charged with two violations of Republic Act No. 9165 (Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002): 1) Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs (Section 5) for selling 0.0416 gram of shabu; and 2) Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs (Section 11) for possessing 0.0694 gram of shabu. During trial, respondent filed a Motion to Allow Accused to Plea Bargain, praying to plead guilty to the lesser offense of Illegal Possession of Equipment, Instrument, Apparatus and Other Paraphernalia for Dangerous Drugs (Section 12). The prosecution opposed, citing Department of Justice (DOJ) Circular No. 27, which prescribed a different acceptable plea bargain. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) approved the plea bargain, finding it in accord with A.M. No. 18-03-16-SC (the Plea Bargaining Framework in Drugs Cases). The prosecution’s motion for reconsideration was denied. The Office of the Solicitor General filed a Petition for Certiorari before the Court of Appeals (CA), which affirmed the RTC’s approval of the plea bargain. The People of the Philippines then filed the present Petition for Review on Certiorari.

ISSUE

1. Whether the Court of Appeals seriously erred in disregarding the principles of mutuality and consensuality in plea bargaining agreements.
2. Whether the approval of the plea bargaining agreement over the objection of the prosecution violated petitioner’s right to procedural due process.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition. The Court held that the plea bargain was in accordance with A.M. No. 18-03-16-SC and the subsequently issued DOJ Circular No. 18, which revoked DOJ Circular No. 27 and conformed to the Court’s plea bargaining framework. The Court emphasized that the power to promulgate rules of procedure, including the procedure on plea bargaining, is lodged exclusively with the Supreme Court under the Constitution. While DOJ circulars serve as internal guidelines for prosecutors, they cannot repeal, alter, or modify the Court’s rules. The trial court retains discretionary authority to grant or deny plea bargain proposals. In this case, the RTC considered the submissions of both parties before approving the plea bargain in accordance with the Court’s framework, and thus did not commit grave abuse of discretion. The issues were rendered moot by DOJ Circular No. 18, but the Court addressed them to stress its exclusive rule-making power and to guide the bench and bar.