G.R. No. 262664 , October 3, 2023
MANUEL LOPEZ BASON, PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, REPRESENTED BY THE OFFICE OF THE SOLICITOR GENERAL, RESPONDENT.

FACTS

This case stemmed from two Informations filed before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) charging petitioner Manuel Lopez Bason with violation of Sections 5 and 11, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 (Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002). During trial, petitioner proposed to plead guilty to two counts of violation of Section 12, Article II of RA 9165 instead. The prosecution opposed the proposal, citing, inter alia, that Department of Justice (DOJ) Circular No. 027 disallows plea bargaining for violations of Section 5. The RTC approved petitioner’s plea bargaining proposal over the prosecution’s objection and found him guilty of the two lesser offenses. The prosecution filed a Petition for Certiorari before the Court of Appeals (CA), which reversed the RTC ruling and ordered the continuation of the trial. Petitioner elevated the case to the Supreme Court.

ISSUE

The primary issue, as discussed in the Separate Concurring and Dissenting Opinion of Justice Kho, Jr., pertains to the proper guidelines for plea bargaining in drugs cases and the respective roles of the Judiciary and the Executive Department in the plea bargaining process.

RULING

Justice Kho, Jr. concurred in the result of the ponencia, which set aside the CA ruling and ordered the remand of the criminal cases to the court of origin to determine petitioner’s eligibility for plea bargaining. This determination includes whether: (a) the evidence of guilt against him is strong; and (b) he is a recidivist, habitual offender, known in the community as a drug addict and/or troublemaker, has undergone rehabilitation but suffered relapses, or has been charged many times. The concurrence is based on the similarity of this case to People v. Montierro and the subsequent issuance of DOJ Circular No. 018, which revoked DOJ Circular No. 027 and aligned the DOJ’s plea-bargaining framework with the Court’s A.M. No. 18-03-16-SC, thereby rendering moot the prosecution’s objection based on the old circular.
However, Justice Kho, Jr. dissented from the ponencia’s statement that the Court’s Plea Bargaining Framework in Drugs Cases takes precedence over any DOJ Department Circular. He reiterated his dissent in Montierro, positing that plea bargaining involves the convergence of the Executive and Judicial departments, each with separate significant roles. The Executive Department, through the public prosecutor, has the power and discretion to prosecute crimes and consent to a plea bargain. The Judicial Department’s role is to approve or disapprove the arrangement. He argued that for the Judiciary to insist its framework takes precedence, overrule the prosecution’s objections, or disapprove an agreement when all requisites are present, constitutes an undue and dangerous intrusion into the powers of the Executive Department.