G.R. No. 258894, January 30, 2023
Glen Orda y Loyola, Petitioner, vs. People of the Philippines, Respondent.
FACTS
This case involves a Concurring and Dissenting Opinion by Justice Kho, Jr. regarding the plea bargaining proposals of petitioner Glen Orda y Loyola. The ponencia (main decision) remands the case to the court of origin to determine the petitioner’s entitlement to avail of the benefits of plea bargaining. Justice Kho concurs with this remand order. The ponencia also rules that, pursuant to the Court En Banc’s ruling in People v. Montierro, the prosecution’s objection to the plea bargain—which was based on Department of Justice (DOJ) Circular No. 27, series of 2018—is deemed withdrawn due to the enactment of DOJ Circular No. 18, series of 2022. DOJ Circular No. 18 revoked the earlier circular and aligned the DOJ’s plea bargaining framework with the Court’s guidelines under A.M. No. 18-03-16-SC.
ISSUE
The primary issue addressed in the concurring and dissenting opinion is whether the trial court, upon remand, should determine the petitioner’s qualification for plea bargaining based on the guidelines set forth in the Montierro case, or whether the plea bargaining process should be viewed as an interplay of powers between the Executive and Judicial departments, with specific roles for each.
RULING
Justice Kho concurs in part and dissents in part from the ponencia.
1. Concurrence: Justice Kho concurs with the ponencia’s decision to remand the case to the Regional Trial Court of Roxas City, Branch 16, to ascertain whether petitioner Glen Orda y Loyola is entitled to the benefits of plea bargaining. He also concurs that the prosecution’s objection, based solely on DOJ Circular No. 27, s. 2018, is effectively withdrawn due to the issuance of DOJ Circular No. 18, s. 2022, as held in People v. Montierro.
2. Dissent: Justice Kho dissents from the ponencia’s directive for the court of origin to determine the petitioner’s qualification based on the Montierro guidelines. He reiterates his view from his Separate Concurring and Dissenting Opinion in Montierro that those guidelines grant trial courts uninhibited discretion in approving or denying plea bargaining proposals, which unduly oversteps the authority of the Executive Department, particularly the DOJ, to prosecute crimes.
3. Alternative Framework: Justice Kho posits that plea bargaining is a process involving multiple parties (the accused, the prosecutor/DOJ, the private offended party where applicable, and the trial court) and is an interplay of powers between the Executive and Judicial departments. He outlines a two-step process:
a. First Step (Executive Discretion): The accused makes a plea bargaining proposal to the handling prosecutor. The prosecutor, considering factors such as internal DOJ guidelines, the strength of evidence, the character of the accused (e.g., recidivism, habitual offender status), and the conformity of the private offended party, decides whether to consent. The prosecutor’s refusal to consent can be elevated administratively within the DOJ and to the Office of the President, and a final refusal cannot be overruled by the trial court out of respect for the Executive’s prosecutorial power. The court’s duty in such a case is to proceed to trial.
b. Second Step (Judicial Approval): If the prosecutor (and the private offended party, if applicable) consents, a written plea bargaining agreement is submitted to the trial court. The court’s role is to determine if all requisites for a valid plea bargain under the Rules of Criminal Procedure are present, including voluntary and intelligent consent from the parties and that the lesser offense is necessarily included in the charge. If satisfied, the court approves the agreement; otherwise, it rejects it and proceeds to trial.
4. Conclusion: Justice Kho votes to remand the criminal cases to the trial court to ascertain the petitioner’s entitlement to plea bargaining benefits, but under the process he outlined, not strictly under the Montierro guidelines. He believes the ponencia should have limited its ruling to acknowledging the withdrawal of the prosecution’s objection and remanding the case for proceedings consistent with the described shared responsibility between the Executive and Judiciary.
