G.R. No. 257410 , August 09, 2023
EDWIN AGUILAR Y DURON, PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.

FACTS

Petitioner Edwin Aguilar y Duron was charged with two counts: Violation of Section 5 (sale) and Section 11 (possession) of Article II of R.A. No. 9165 (Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002). The charges stemmed from an alleged sale of 0.1510 grams of shabu and possession of 0.7676 grams of shabu on July 6, 2018. Upon arraignment, Aguilar pleaded not guilty but later filed a “Proposal for Plea Bargaining,” offering to plead guilty to the lesser offense of Violation of Section 12 (possession of equipment, instrument, apparatus and other paraphernalia for dangerous drugs) of R.A. No. 9165 , pursuant to A.M. No. 18-03-16-SC (Plea Bargaining Framework in Drugs Cases). The prosecution objected to the proposal, citing inconsistency with Department of Justice (DOJ) guidelines. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) granted Aguilar’s plea bargaining proposal over the prosecution’s objection, convicted him of two counts of Violation of Section 12, and imposed corresponding penalties. The RTC reasoned that the court’s Plea Bargaining Framework applied since the total weight of the shabu involved was less than one gram. The prosecution’s motion for reconsideration was denied. The Court of Appeals (CA) granted the People’s Petition for Certiorari, nullified the RTC Decision, and ordered the continuation of the trial. The CA held that plea bargaining requires the consent of the prosecution, and the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion in granting the plea bargain over the prosecution’s objection. Aguilar’s motion for reconsideration was denied.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in nullifying the RTC Decision which granted the accused’s plea bargaining proposal over the prosecution’s objection.

RULING

The Supreme Court granted the petition and set aside the CA Decision and Resolution. The Court held that the CA erred in relying on the case of Sayre v. Xenos, as the controlling doctrine is now established in People v. Montierro. The Court clarified that the issuance of DOJ Circular No. 18 (Revised Amended Guidelines on Plea Bargaining for R.A. No. 9165 ) has reconciled the Court’s Plea Bargaining Framework with the DOJ guidelines. Under the prevailing rules, an accused charged under Section 5 or Section 11 of R.A. No. 9165 involving minimal quantities (less than 1 gram of shabu) may be allowed to plead guilty to Section 12, and the prosecution’s objection based on inconsistency with the Plea Bargaining Framework may be overruled by the trial court. However, the Court remanded the criminal cases to the RTC for further determination. Following Montierro, the trial court must evaluate whether the accused is a recidivist, habitual offender, known community drug addict, has relapsed after rehabilitation, has been charged many times, or if the evidence of guilt is strong. Since the RTC did not make such an evaluation, the cases were remanded to the RTC to determine if Aguilar qualifies or is disqualified from plea bargaining based on these specific circumstances.