G.R. No. 259728 . October 12, 2022.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PETITIONER, VS. DARWIN REYES Y CABORNAY, RESPONDENT.

FACTS

The respondent, Darwin Reyes y Cabornay, was charged with two separate violations of Republic Act No. 9165 : illegal sale of dangerous drugs under Section 5 (Criminal Case No. 20216) and illegal possession under Section 11 (Criminal Case No. 20215). During trial, the respondent moved to plead guilty to a lesser offense in the illegal sale case, specifically from Section 5 to Section 12 (possession of drug paraphernalia). The prosecution objected, citing non-compliance with Department of Justice Circular No. 027. Nonetheless, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) granted the motion in an Order dated November 15, 2019, convicting the respondent of the Section 12 offense and imposing an indeterminate penalty. The same order, however, declared the respondent ineligible to apply for probation.
The respondent filed a motion for reconsideration solely targeting the probation disqualification, which the RTC denied. He then filed a Petition for Certiorari before the Court of Appeals (CA). The CA granted the petition, annulled the RTC’s order of disqualification, and directed the respondent to file his probation application. The People, through the Office of the Solicitor General, elevated the case to the Supreme Court via a Petition for Review on Certiorari, arguing that the plea bargain was void for deviating from DOJ Circular No. 027 and, consequently, the CA erred in finding the respondent eligible for probation.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in ruling that the respondent is eligible to apply for probation.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the CA’s ruling. The legal logic centers on the finality of the respondent’s conviction for the specific crime of illegal possession of drug paraphernalia under Section 12 of RA 9165, and the consequent application of the Probation Law. The petitioner’s argument that the plea bargain was void for violating DOJ Circular No. 027 is immaterial to the probation eligibility issue. The Court emphasized that the RTC’s judgment of conviction for the Section 12 offense had long become final and executory. A judicial decree that has attained finality becomes immutable and unalterable.
The determinative factor for probation eligibility is the crime for which the accused is ultimately convicted. Section 24 of RA 9165 prohibits probation only for persons convicted of drug trafficking or pushing under Section 5. The respondent was not convicted under Section 5; his final conviction was for violation of Section 12. Therefore, the statutory prohibition does not apply to him. The Probation Law (Presidential Decree No. 968) is remedial and should be liberally construed in favor of the accused to promote rehabilitation. Since the respondent’s sentence for the Section 12 offense is within the probationable period (not exceeding six years), and he is not disqualified under Section 9 of the Probation Law or the specific bar under Section 24 of RA 9165, he is eligible to apply. The Court upheld the CA’s directive for the respondent to file his probation application within fifteen days.