G.R. No. 258126. April 19, 2023.
JONATHAN GABRIEL BIRON, ARJAY MENDEZ, AND ERIC EBUENGA PALOMER, PETITIONERS, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.

FACTS

Petitioners Jonathan Gabriel Biron, Arjay Mendez, and Eric Ebuenga Palomer were charged in three separate Informations for violations of Republic Act No. 9165 (Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002). Biron was charged with illegal sale (Section 5) and illegal possession (Section 11) in Criminal Case Nos. T-7306 and T-7307, respectively. All petitioners were charged with illegal sale (Section 5) in Criminal Case No. T-7308. After pleading not guilty, petitioners filed motions to enter into a plea bargain and plead guilty to the lesser offense of possession of drug paraphernalia under Section 12 of RA 9165, citing Supreme Court Administrative Matter (A.M.) No. 18-03-16-SC (Adoption of the Plea-Bargaining Framework in Drugs Cases). The Deputy City Prosecutor opposed the motions, asserting that plea bargaining requires the concurrence or approval of the public prosecutor. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) granted the motions, allowed re-arraignment, and subsequently found petitioners guilty of the lesser offense under Section 12, imposing penalties and conditions for probation. The prosecution moved for reconsideration, which the RTC denied, stating that the Supreme Court’s administrative circular prevails over a Department of Justice circular. The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA), arguing the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion by approving the plea bargain over the prosecution’s objection. The CA granted the petition, reversing the RTC, and ruled that plea bargaining requires mutual agreement between the prosecution and the accused, and that Section 12 is not a lesser offense necessarily included in Sections 5 or 11. Petitioners elevated the case to the Supreme Court via a Petition for Review on Certiorari.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in reversing the Regional Trial Court’s approval of the petitioners’ plea of guilty to the lesser offense under Section 12 of RA 9165, despite the prosecution’s objection.

RULING

The Supreme Court granted the petition, set aside the Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals, and remanded the cases to the RTC. The Court held that while plea bargaining is a consensual process requiring mutual agreement, the prosecution’s objection does not automatically warrant denial of the plea bargain application. Citing its ruling in People v. Montierro, the Court established that when the prosecution objects, the trial court must determine if the objection is based on any of the following grounds supported by evidence: (1) the accused are recidivists, habitual offenders, known in the community as drug addicts and troublemakers, have undergone rehabilitation but had a relapse, or have been charged many times; or (2) the evidence of guilt is strong. If the prosecution fails to substantiate its objection with evidence on these grounds, the court may allow the accused to plead guilty to a lesser offense. The Court found it proper to remand the cases to the RTC to make this determination. Furthermore, the Court ordered petitioners to submit to a drug dependency test pursuant to A.M. No. 18-03-16-SC.