G.R. No. 258420 , February 26, 2025
ANTHONY ARNALDO LO @ “WHITE,” AND ALWIN BORILLA NAGALLO @ “TALI BOY,” PETITIONERS, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.

FACTS

Petitioners Anthony Arnaldo Lo and Alwin Borilla Nagallo were charged in Criminal Case Nos. T-7005 and T-7017 for violation of Sections 5 (Sale of Dangerous Drugs) and 12 (Possession of Drug Paraphernalia) of Republic Act No. 9165 (Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002). The charge under Section 5 involved the sale of 0.039 gram of shabu. The petitioners filed a Plea Bargaining Agreement, proposing to withdraw their not guilty plea for violation of Section 5 and substitute it with a plea of guilty to the lesser offense under Section 12 (Possession of Equipment, Instrument, Apparatus and Other Paraphernalia for Dangerous Drugs), with a penalty of six months and one day to four years and a fine. For the existing Section 12 charge, they proposed to plead guilty to the lesser offense under Section 15 (Use of Dangerous Drugs), with a penalty of six months of treatment and rehabilitation. The public prosecutor objected, citing DOJ Department Circular No. 027, which stated that the acceptable plea bargain for violation of Section 5 should be under Section 11 (Possession of Dangerous Drugs). The Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Tabaco City, Albay, Branch 15, approved the plea bargain, finding it in consonance with the Supreme Court’s A.M. No. 18-03-16-SC (Adoption of the Plea Bargaining Framework in Drugs Cases), which allows an accused charged under Section 5 with a quantity of shabu between 0.01 gram to 0.99 grams to plead guilty to Section 12, and an accused charged under Section 12 to plead guilty to Section 15. The RTC subsequently convicted the petitioners under the downgraded offenses and approved their application for probation. The People, through the Office of the Solicitor General, assailed the RTC’s rulings via a Petition for Certiorari before the Court of Appeals (CA). The CA granted the petition, setting aside the RTC’s orders. The petitioners elevated the case to the Supreme Court via a Petition for Review on Certiorari.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in setting aside the Regional Trial Court’s approval of the petitioners’ plea bargaining proposal, which was based on the Supreme Court’s plea bargaining framework under A.M. No. 18-03-16-SC.

RULING

No, the Court of Appeals did not err. The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the CA’s decision. The Court held that while plea bargaining in drug cases is allowed following the declaration of unconstitutionality of Section 23 of R.A. No. 9165 in Estipona, Jr. v. Lobrigo, the acceptance of a plea bargain requires the mutual agreement of both the prosecution and the accused. The trial court cannot impose a plea bargain over the objection of the public prosecutor. The role of the judge is to determine whether the plea bargain agreement conforms to the Court’s guidelines and is in the best interest of justice. In this case, the public prosecutor validly objected to the proposal based on DOJ Department Circular No. 027. The Supreme Court clarified that its plea bargaining framework under A.M. No. 18-03-16-SC is not mandatory but merely suggestive for the guidance of the lower courts. The framework does not strip the public prosecutor of the discretion to agree or disagree with a plea bargain proposal. Therefore, the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion in approving the plea bargain over the prosecution’s objection. The case was remanded to the RTC for further proceedings.