G.R. No. 258893 , May 29, 2024
RAUL DOMEN Y AURELLANO, PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.

FACTS

Petitioner Raul Domen y Aurellano was charged in two separate Amended Informations before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Dumaguete City. In Criminal Case No. 2017-24487, he was accused of Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs under Section 5 of Republic Act No. 9165 (Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002) for selling 0.04 gram of shabu. In Criminal Case No. 2017-24488, he was charged with Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs under Section 11 of the same law for possessing 0.91 gram of shabu. Upon arraignment, he pleaded not guilty. Subsequently, Raul filed a Motion for Plea Bargaining, manifesting his willingness to plead guilty to the lesser offense of violation of Section 12 (Possession of Equipment, Instrument, Apparatus and Other Paraphernalia for Dangerous Drugs) for both charges. The prosecution, in its Comment/Opposition, was amenable to the plea bargain for the illegal possession charge but objected to it for the illegal sale charge, citing that it was not allowed under Department of Justice (DOJ) Circular No. 027 dated June 26, 2018. The RTC granted Raul’s motion in its entirety, rendering a Joint Judgment finding him guilty of two counts of violation of Section 12, R.A. 9165. The prosecution’s motion for reconsideration was denied. The State then filed a Petition for Certiorari before the Court of Appeals (CA). The CA granted the petition, setting aside the RTC’s orders and judgment insofar as they allowed the plea bargain in Criminal Case No. 2017-24487 (illegal sale). The CA ruled that the prosecution’s objection prevented a mutual agreement, and while the Supreme Court’s Plea Bargaining Framework in Drugs Cases (A.M. No. 18-03-16-SC) allows such plea bargaining, it does not dispense with the prosecutor’s consent. Raul’s motion for reconsideration was denied, prompting this petition.

ISSUE

Did the RTC gravely abuse its discretion in approving Raul’s plea bargain for the charge of Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs (Section 5, R.A. 9165) to the lesser offense of Illegal Possession of Drug Paraphernalia (Section 12, R.A. 9165) despite the prosecution’s objection based on DOJ Circular No. 027?

RULING

No, the RTC did not gravely abuse its discretion. The petition is meritorious. The Supreme Court took judicial notice of DOJ Circular No. 18 dated May 10, 2022, which expressly revoked DOJ Circular No. 027. The recent circular aligned its provisions with the Court-issued Plea Bargaining Framework in Drugs Cases. Consequently, the prosecution’s objection to the plea bargain, which was based solely on the revoked circular, is deemed effectively withdrawn. The Court cited People v. Montierro, which laid down guidelines for plea bargaining, including that it generally requires mutual agreement of the parties but that the judge may allow it if the prosecution’s objection is based solely on grounds that are contrary to the guidelines provided by the Supreme Court. Since the prosecution’s objection was based on a DOJ circular that was inconsistent with and subsequently revoked in favor of the Supreme Court’s framework, the RTC’s approval of the plea bargain was proper. The CA decision was reversed. The Supreme Court directed the remand of the case to the RTC to determine if Raul should undergo drug dependency treatment and rehabilitation, and thereafter, to impose the appropriate penalty under Section 12 of R.A. 9165 in accordance with the plea bargain.