G.R. No. 257733 , January 11, 2023
JAMES BILLOSO Y OBLIGAR, PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.

FACTS

This case involves a plea-bargaining proposal by the accused, James Billoso y Obligar. The prosecution objected to the proposal based on two grounds: (1) the directive in Department of Justice (DOJ) Circular No. 027-18, which only allowed consideration of plea bargains for violations of Section 5 in relation to Section 26 of Republic Act No. 9165 (the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002); and (2) the sufficiency of evidence to convict the accused of violations of both Section 5 and Section 11 of RA 9165. The ponencia (main decision) denied the petition and remanded the case to the trial court.

ISSUE

The central issue addressed in the Separate Concurring Opinion is the proper delineation of powers between the Executive and the Judiciary in the plea-bargaining process, specifically whether a trial court can override the prosecution’s objection to a plea bargain.

RULING

The Separate Concurring Opinion concurs with the ponencia’s denial of the petition and its remand of the case. It provides the following detailed legal basis:
1. Plea Bargaining as an Interplay of Powers: Plea bargaining is an interplay between the Judiciary and the Executive. The prosecutor, representing the State (Executive branch), has the power to prosecute. The trial court (Judiciary) oversees the criminal proceedings.
2. Rule-Making vs. Prosecutorial Discretion: The Supreme Court has the exclusive rule-making power to establish the procedure for plea bargaining, as provided in Rule 116, Section 2 and Rule 118, Section 1(a) of the Rules of Court. However, the Rules do not direct a prosecutor to consent to a plea deal, nor can a court impose a plea bargain over the prosecutor’s objection. A part of the plea-bargaining process is “solely within the realm of prosecutorial discretion.”
3. Judicial Deference to Prosecutorial Discretion: The power to prosecute is an Executive function. The prosecutor has wide discretion on whether, what, and whom to charge. While courts have jurisdiction over a case once filed, the prosecutor still steers the criminal case. Judicial deference to prosecutorial decisions is the norm, as courts are not competent to examine the multitude of factors in charging decisions.
4. Role of the Trial Court: The trial court’s participation begins only after the prosecution and the accused have mutually agreed to a plea deal. The court’s role is to consider the agreement, ensure mutual consent and that legal requirements are met, and exercise its sound discretion to approve or disapprove the proposal. The consent of the prosecution is a condition precedent, but the court’s approval is discretionary.
5. Application to the Case: The prosecution’s first objection based on DOJ Circular No. 027-18 is moot due to the issuance of DOJ Circular No. 018-22. However, its second objection regarding the sufficiency of evidence remains. Therefore, the trial court, upon remand, is obligated to examine and weigh the prosecution’s evidence to determine if the accused is qualified to enter into a plea bargain.