ERNESTO GALICIA Y VILLARASA, PETITIONER, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.
FACTS
Petitioner Ernesto Galicia y Villarasa was charged with illegal sale of dangerous drugs (shabu) under Section 5 of Republic Act No. 9165. During arraignment, he pleaded not guilty. After the prosecution presented and formally offered its evidence, Galicia, invoking A.M. No. 18-03-16-SC (the Plea Bargaining Framework in Drug Cases), filed a Motion for Plea Bargaining to plead guilty to the lesser offense of illegal possession of drug paraphernalia under Section 12 of R.A. No. 9165. The prosecution opposed the motion, citing Department of Justice (DOJ) Circular No. 61 (later revised by DOJ Circular No. 27), which prohibited prosecutors from entering into plea bargains for violations of Section 5. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) granted Galicia’s motion, ruling that the DOJ Circulars were contrary to the Rules of Court and encroached on the Supreme Court’s rule-making power. The RTC subsequently allowed Galicia to withdraw his not guilty plea, re-arraigned him, and accepted his guilty plea to the lesser offense despite the prosecution’s lack of consent and objection. The RTC then rendered a Judgment convicting Galicia of violation of Section 12. The Office of the Solicitor General filed a Petition for Certiorari before the Court of Appeals (CA). The CA granted the petition, nullified the RTC’s Orders and Judgment, and directed the RTC to proceed with the reception of defense evidence. Galicia’s motion for reconsideration was denied.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals gravely erred in holding that the consent of the prosecution is a condition sine qua non for the grant of a plea bargain in drug cases.
RULING
No, the Court of Appeals did not err. The Supreme Court, citing its ruling in Aquino v. People (G.R. No. 259094, January 28, 2025), affirmed that the consent of the public prosecutor is indispensable for a valid plea bargain. A plea bargain is a consensual agreement between the prosecution and the defense; it is not a unilateral act by the accused. The trial court cannot impose a plea bargain over the objection of the prosecution. While A.M. No. 18-03-16-SC, issued by the Supreme Court, provides the governing framework for plea bargaining in drug cases and prevails over conflicting issuances from other government agencies like the DOJ, it does not dispense with the requirement of prosecutorial consent. The framework sets the permissible terms for an agreement, but the agreement itself must still be reached by the parties. The RTC committed grave abuse of discretion in allowing the plea bargain and convicting Galicia of a lesser offense without the consent of the prosecution. The case was remanded to the RTC for further proceedings.
