The Supreme Court has issued new guidelines governing and clarifying plea bargaining in illegal drugs cases, where an accused seeks to plead guilty to a lesser offense in exchange for a lighter penalty.
In a decision, the SC declared that a move to plea bargain, which should be done through a proper pleading, is not a right demandable by an accused in an illegal drugs case “but is a matter addressed entirely to the sound discretion of the court.”
Plea bargaining, although agreed upon by the prosecution and the accused, does not mean that “the courts will automatically approve the proposal,” the high court said.
“Judges must still exercise sound discretion in granting or denying plea bargaining, taking into account the relevant circumstances, including the character of the accused,” it stressed.
The new guidelines pointed out that “if an accused applies for probation in offenses punishable under Republic Act No. 9165 (Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002), other than for illegal drug trafficking or pushing under Section 5 in relation to Section 24 thereof, then the law on probation shall apply.”
The new guidelines were contained in a Supreme Court en banc decision that resolved the petitions filed by government lawyers and an accused in an illegal drugs case.
The high court also resolved in the decision written by Associate Justice Alfredo Benjamin S. Caguioa were the letter of the Philippine Judges Association and the memorandum to the SC by then Court Administrator Jose Midas P. Marquez, now an associate justice of the SC.
In 2017, Cypher P. Baldadera was charged before the Naga City regional trial court (RTC) with violation of Section 5 (Sale), Article II of RA 9165. He reportedly sold 0.048 gram of shabu to law enforcers.
Also in 2017, Erick V. Montierro was charged before the RTC with violation of Section 5, Article II of RA 9165. He was arrested for allegedly selling 0.721 gram of shabu, also in Naga City.
Both accused moved for plea bargaining in their cases. Despite the opposition of the prosecution, the RTC granted Montierro’s plea bargaining.
The trial court’s decision was affirmed by the Court of Appeals, prompting government lawyers to elevate the issue to the SC.
In the case of Baldadera, while the RTC granted his plea bargaining, the CA overturned the trial court’s ruling. He appealed the CA’s decision before the SC.
During the pendency of the two cases before the RTC, the SC issued a decision on August 15, 2017 that declared Section 23 of RA 9165 unconstitutional as it declared that plea bargaining is permitted in drugs cases.
On Nov. 21, 2017, the Department of Justice (DOJ) issued Department Circular No. 61 which prohibited plea bargaining for violations of Section 5 of RA No. 9165 or in cases of illegal sale of dangerous drugs regardless of its quantity.
On April 10, 2018, pursuant to its rule-making power under the 1987 Constitution, the Court promulgated the Plea Bargaining Framework in Drugs Cases.
Under the plea bargaining framework, “an accused charged with violation of Section 5 of RA No. 9165 is allowed to plea bargain only when the quantity involved is 0.01 gram to 0.99 gram of methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu, and for which, the acceptable plea bargain is Section 12 of RA No. 9165 or illegal possession of equipment, instrument, apparatus and other paraphernalia for dangerous drugs punishable by six months and one day to four years and a fine ranging from P10,000 to P50,000.”
On June 26, 2018, the DOJ issued Circular No. 27 which amended its Circular No. 61. DOJ Circular No. 27 states that “for the charge under Section 5 of RA No. 9165, the acceptable plea bargain is the offense under Section 11, paragraph 3 or illegal possession of dangerous drugs with an indeterminate penalty of 12 years and one day to 20 years and a fine from P300,000 to P400,000.”
On May 10, 2022, the DOJ issued Circular No. 18 which amended DOJ Circular No. 27 to conform to the SC’s Plea Bargaining Framework in Drugs Cases.
In resolving the issues, the SC issued the new guidelines to enhance and clarify plea bargaining in illegal drugs case. The guidelines have been circularized to all RTCs in the country by Court Administrator Raul B. Villanueva. These are:
“Offers for plea bargaining must be initiated in writing by way of a formal written motion filed by the accused in court.
“The lesser offense which the accused proposes to plead guilty to must necessarily be included in the offense charged.
“Upon receipt of the proposal for plea bargaining that is compliant with the provisions of the Plea Bargaining Framework in Drugs Cases, the judge shall order that a drug dependency assessment be administered.
“If the accused admits drug use, or denies it but is found positive after a drug dependency test, then he/she shall undergo treatment and rehabilitation for a period of not less than six months. Said period shall be credited to his/her penalty and the period of his/her after-care and follow-up program if the penalty is still unserved.”
“If the accused is found negative for drug use/dependency, then he/she will be released on time served, otherwise, he/she will serve his/her sentence in jail minus the counselling period at rehabilitation center.”