People of the Philippines vs Erick
Montierro
G.R. No. 254564; G.R. No. 254974; A.M. No. 21-07-16-SC; A.M. No. 18-03-16-SC –
Remedial Law – Criminal Procedure – Sec. 4, Rule 114; Plea to a Lesser Offense –
Plea Bargaining in Drugs Cases – Requisites of a valid plea bargaining
This case was consolidated with Cypher Baldadera vs People of the Philippines(G.R.
No. 254974), Re: Letter of the Philippine Judges Association Expressing Its Concern
over the Ramifications of the Decisions in G.R. No. 247575 and G.R. No.
250295 (A.M. No. 21-07-16-SC), and Re: Letter of Associate Justice Diosdado M.
Peralta on the Suggested Plea Bargaining Framework Submitted by the Philippine
Judges Association (A.M. No. 18-03-16-SC).
In early 2017, Montierro and Baldadera were separately charged with violations
of Sec. 5, RA No. 9165 (selling illegal drugs) for allegedly selling shabu or
methamphetamine hydrochloride. The penalty for selling illegal drugs is lifetime
imprisonment.
In August 2017, the SC promulgated Estipona vs. Lobrigo which declared that
plea bargaining is allowed in drugs cases.
In November 2017, the Department of Justice issued Department Circular No.
061-17 which disallowed its prosecutors from agreeing with plea bargaining
proposals in cases involving violations of Section 5 of RA No. 9165 or in cases of
illegal sale of dangerous drugs regardless of the quantity seized in those cases.
In April 2018, the SC issued A.M. No. 18-03-16-SC or the Plea Bargaining
Framework in Drugs Cases which allowed plea bargaining in Section 5 cases if
the quantity of the drugs seized is 0.01 gram to 0.99 gram. Accused in these cases
are allowed to plead guilty to the lesser offense of violation of Section 12 or
illegal possession of equipment, instrument, apparatus and other paraphernalia
for dangerous drugs punishable by six (6) months and one (1) day to four (4)
years and a fine ranging from P10,000.00 to P50,000.00.
In June 2018, the DOJ issued Department Circular No. 027-18 which amended
Department Circular No. 061-17. This allows their prosecutors to agree to plea
bargaining proposals involving violations of Section 5 but the acceptable
proposal should be a plea of guilt to the lesser offense of Section 11, paragraph 3
or illegal possession of dangerous drugs with an indeterminate penalty of twelve
(12) years and one (1) clay to twenty (20) years and a fine from P300.000.00 to
P400,000.00.
Baldadera and Montierro submitted their respective plea bargaining proposals
with both seeking to plead guilty for violations of Section 12. The prosecution
objected to the proposals but despite the objection, the trial court approved the
proposals and both were convicted to the lesser offense of violations of Section
12.
The Office of the Solicitor-General questioned the approval of the plea bargaining
proposals on the ground that one of the requisites for a valid plea of guilt is the
consent of the prosecution as ruled in People vs Reafor (G.R. No. 247575, 16
November 2020).
ISSUES: Whether or not there may be a valid plea bargaining agreement even if
the prosecution objects to the plea bargaining proposal.
HELD: Yes. These consolidated cases settle the conflict between the DOJ
issuances and the Court’s plea bargaining framework as well as the seeming
confusion brought about by the SC’s ruling in Reafor.
Plea bargaining requires the consent of the parties but the approval thereof is
subject to the sound discretion of the court. Whether the prosecution is for or
against the accused’s proposal to plead guilty to a lesser offense, the trial court
remains duty-bound to assiduously evaluate the qualifications of the accused and
the circumstances of the case. In other words, the approval of the accused’s plea
of guilty to a lesser offense is ultimately subject to the sound discretion of the
court.
For a valid plea bargaining in drugs cases, the following guidelines must be
observed by the trial court:
1. Offers for plea bargaining must be initiated in writing by way of a formal
written motion filed by the accused in court.
2. The lesser offense which the accused proposes to plead guilty to must
necessarily be included in the offense charged.
3. 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 (6) 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.
4. As a rule, plea bargaining requires the mutual agreement of the parties and
remains subject to the approval of the court. Regardless of the mutual agreement
of the parties, the acceptance of the offer to plead guilty to a lesser offense is not
demandable by the accused as a matter of right but is a matter addressed entirely
to the sound discretion of the court.
a. Though the prosecution and the defense may agree to enter into a plea bargain,
it does not follow that the courts will automatically approve the proposal. Judges
must still exercise sound discretion in granting or denying plea bargaining,
taking into account the relevant circumstances, including the character of the
accused.
5. The court shall not allow plea bargaining if the objection to the plea bargaining
is valid and supported by evidence to the effect that:
a. the offender is a recidivist, habitual offender, known in the community as a
drug addict and a troublemaker, has undergone rehabilitation but had a relapse,
or has been charged many times; or
b. when the evidence of guilt is strong.
6. Plea bargaining in drugs cases shall not be allowed when the proposed plea
bargain does not conform to the Court-issued Plea Bargaining Framework in
Drugs Cases.
7. Judges may overrule the objection of the prosecution if it is based solely on the
ground that the accused’s plea bargaining proposal is inconsistent with the
acceptable plea bargain under any internal rules or guidelines of the DOJ, though
in accordance with the plea bargaining framework issued by the Court, if any.
8. If the prosecution objects to the accused’s plea bargaining proposal due to the
circumstances enumerated in item no. 5, the trial court is mandated to hear the
prosecution’s objection and rule on the merits thereof. If the trial court finds the
objection meritorious, it shall order the continuation of the criminal proceedings.
9. If an accused applies for probation in offenses punishable under RA No. 9165,
other than for illegal drug trafficking or pushing under Section 5 in relation to
Section 24 thereof, then the law on probation shall apply.
In Reafor, there was no showing that the trial judge judiciously resolved the
objection of the prosecution.
The cases of Montierro and Baldadera are remanded to the lower court for
further proceedings to resolve the basis of the objection of the prosecution.
Read full text.
Note: The ruling that there must be a drug dependency test result before an
accused’s plea bargaining proposal may be resolved was abandoned by the
Supreme Court in Bason vs. People (G.R. No. 262664, 3 October 2023).