Alea vs. People of the Philippines

A trial court commits grave abuse of discretion when it denies a motion for plea bargaining in a drug case solely because the accused is charged with two offenses arising from a single incident and relies only on the nature of the offense and the quantity of drugs seized, where the proposed plea is allowed under A.M. No. 18-03-16-SC; the disqualification ground "has been charged many times" refers to past incidents or prior charges different from the present incident.

Alea was charged in two criminal cases for violations of Article II, Sections 5 and 11 of Republic Act No. 9165. The Court's plea-bargaining framework in drug cases, A.M. No. 18-03-16-SC, and OCA Circular No. 102-2023-AA govern the acceptance of a plea to a lesser offense, making it subject to the sound discretion of the trial court. The present controversy concerns the proper scope of the disqualification ground "has been charged many times" under those issuances.

Alea was apprehended during a buy-bust operation and charged in two separate Informations before Branch 295, Regional Trial Court of Parañaque City. Criminal Case No. 2023-0226 charged illegal sale of dangerous drugs under Article II, Section 5 of Republic Act No. 9165. On or about February 5, 2023, in Parañaque City, Alea allegedly sold one heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance, marked A(EGE(SUBJECT OF SALE) 5:00 p.m. 02-05-2013 San Juan De Coastal Brgy. San Dionisio, Parañaque City with signature, with a net weight of 0.35 grams, to poseur buyer PCPL EuclYPE Eduarte for PHP 500.00; the contents tested positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride. Criminal Case No. 2023-0227 charged illegal possession of dangerous drugs under Article II, Section 11. On or about the same date and place, Alea allegedly had in his possession and custody three heat-sealed transparent plastic sachets containing white crystalline substance, marked B(EGE-1 5:00 p.m. 02-05-2023 San Juan De Coastal Brgy. San Dionisio, Parañaque City with signature)-0.87 grams; C(EGE-2 5:00 p.m. 02-05-2023 San Juan De Coastal Brgy. San Dionisio, Parañaque City with signature)-0.91 grams; and D(EGE-3 5:00 p.m. 02-05-2023 San Juan De Coastal Brgy. San Dionisio, Parañaque City with signature)-0.45 grams, or a total of 2.23 grams, which tested positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride. Both were contrary to law.

Before trial, Alea manifested his willingness to enter into a plea-bargaining agreement. On March 20, 2023, through the Public Attorney's Office, he filed a Motion to Enter Into Plea Bargaining Agreement, praying that he be allowed to withdraw his prior plea of not guilty and instead enter a plea to the lesser offense of Article II, Section 12 of Republic Act No. 9165 for both charges, pursuant to A.M. No. 18-03-16-SC.

The RTC, in a Resolution dated March 27, 2023, denied Alea's motion. It held that the court's discretion to act on plea-bargaining proposals is independent from the requirement of mutual agreement of the parties and that acceptance of the offer to plead guilty to a lesser offense is not demandable by the accused as a matter of right but is addressed entirely to the sound discretion of the court. It further highlighted that the court shall not allow plea bargaining since the accused "has been charged many times" under Article II, Sections 5 and 11 of Republic Act No. 9165.

Alea filed a Motion for Reconsideration, arguing that the RTC's interpretation of the phrase "has been charged many times" was misplaced because the phrase should refer to past incidents, not to the present case where the two charges arose from the same incident. He cited the Letter of Referral from the Southern Police District-Parañaque City Police Station to the Office of the City Prosecutor-Parañaque City, the Joint Affidavit of Arrest, the Affidavit of Arrest by the Poseur-Buyer, the Spot Report, and the Booking and Arrest Report to state the relevant circumstances surrounding his arrest: (a) the cases for violations of Sections 5 and 11 of Republic Act No. 9165 arose from one incident that transpired at about 5:00 p.m. of February 5, 2023; (b) no other cases arising from acts antecedent or subsequent to the violations were filed against him, and an inquiry with the RTC-OCC, Parañaque City yielded negative results for any other case under his name; (c) no resistance came from him at any time during the entire operation, and he was neither "watch listed" nor "target listed"; (d) the buy-bust operation conducted was not a "significant operation," and the methamphetamine-positive urine samples were from "Joseph Tripolca y Sumaylo" and "Harry Mariano y Copada"; (e) he was gainfully employed as a construction worker with a monthly income of PHP 16,500.00; and (f) the quantities of dangerous drugs involved in the cases for violation of Section 5 and Section 11 were considered diminutive and within the permissible amounts of dangerous drugs that may be subject to plea bargaining under A.M. No. 18-03-16-SC. The People of the Philippines, through the public prosecutor, submitted a Manifestation identifying individuals with previous charges, and Alea was not included among those listed.

On June 27, 2023, the RTC denied Alea's Motion for Reconsideration, reiterating that being charged for two offenses, taking into consideration the nature of the charges and the amount of drugs seized from him, defined his character and criminal propensity. The RTC elaborated that paragraph 5(a) of OCA Circular No. 102-2023-AA cites the phrase "has been charged many times" and appears to refer to "past incidents," but that in its view the paragraph pertains to the accused's character and criminal propensity; regardless of whether the accused is charged "many times" from past incidents or from a "single and present" incident, the charges define the character and criminal propensity of the accused. It noted that Alea was charged under Article II, Section 5 for illegally selling one sachet containing 0.35 gram of methamphetamine hydrochloride and under Section 11 for illegally possessing three sachets containing a total of 2.23 grams of methamphetamine hydrochloride. Considering the nature and number of charges and the number of plastic sachets with dangerous drugs seized, the RTC stated that it could not be said the drugs were for personal use but were already intended for distribution. It characterized the proliferation of dangerous drugs as a serious social menace and found that Alea's involvement in distribution showed a character and criminal propensity worse than being a recidivist, habitual offender, drug addict, or troublemaker, thus disqualifying him from plea bargaining. It warned that allowing the plea despite the number and nature of the charges and the number of sachets would reduce the mechanism to a "tool for compromise" and weaken the government's campaign against illegal drugs.

Alea then filed before the CA a Petition for Certiorari with an Urgent Prayer for Temporary Restraining Order and/or Writ of Preliminary Injunction, alleging that the RTC acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in denying the motion to enter into a plea bargaining agreement despite the fact that he possessed all the qualifications and none of the disqualifications under OCA Circular No. 102-2023-AA. The Office of the Solicitor General filed its Comment dated November 24, 2023, asserting that the RTC correctly exercised its discretion in denying Alea's motion. The RTC found that Alea faced two charges under Sections 5 and 11 arising from the same incident and that the drugs seized totaled 0.35 gram for sale and 2.23 grams for possession; the CA found that the RTC had assessed the nature of the offenses and Alea's involvement therein.

• Misinterpretation of "Has Been Charged Many Times": Petitioner argued that the RTC erroneously construed the phrase; it should refer to past incidents, not the present case where the two charges arose from the same incident.
• Qualifications Under OCA Circular No. 102-2023-AA: Petitioner maintained that he possesses all the qualifications and none of the disqualifications under OCA Circular No. 102-2023-AA, and that the RTC acted with grave abuse of discretion in denying his motion.
• Permissible Quantities Under A.M. No. 18-03-16-SC: Petitioner pointed out that the quantities of dangerous drugs involved are considered diminutive and within the permissible amounts subject to plea bargaining under A.M. No. 18-03-16-SC.
• Absence of Other Disqualifying Circumstances: Petitioner cited records showing no other cases arising from acts antecedent or subsequent to the incident, no resistance, that he was neither watch listed nor target listed, that the buy-bust operation was not a significant operation, and that the methamphetamine-positive urine samples were from Joseph Tripolca y Sumaylo and Harry Mariano y Copada.
• Employment and Character: Petitioner noted that he was gainfully employed as a construction worker with a monthly income of PHP 16,500.00.

• Sound Discretion of the RTC: Respondent, through the Office of the Solicitor General, asserted that the RTC correctly exercised its discretion in denying Alea's motion.

• Grave Abuse of Discretion: Whether the RTC acted with grave abuse of discretion when it denied Alea's motion to plead to a lesser offense under Article II, Section 12 of Republic Act No. 9165.
• "Has Been Charged Many Times": Whether the phrase "has been charged many times" in OCA Circular No. 102-2023-AA disqualifies an accused charged with two offenses arising from a single incident.

• Grave Abuse of Discretion: Yes. The RTC failed to conduct an impartial and fair evaluation of Alea's qualifications and circumstances as required by Montierro and Aquino; it denied the motion based solely on the two charges from a single incident and the nature and quantity of drugs, which does not suffice where the plea is allowed under A.M. No. 18-03-16-SC.
• "Has Been Charged Many Times": No. The phrase refers to past incidents or prior charges different from the present incident, under ejusdem generis; it does not cover two offenses arising from a single incident. The proposed plea conformed to the Plea Bargaining Framework, and no other disqualifying ground was found.

• Grave Abuse of Discretion: The Court cited Montierro: approval or denial of plea bargaining, regardless of mutual consent, is strictly within the sole power and discretion of the court. However, the trial court has the duty to independently evaluate the qualifications of the accused and the circumstances of the case regardless of whether the prosecution is for or against the proposal. Aquino supplemented Montierro: judges must exercise sound discretion in granting or denying plea bargaining, taking into account objections raised by the prosecution and other relevant circumstances, including the character of the accused. The court shall not allow plea bargaining if the objection is valid and supported by evidence that 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, has been charged many times, or when the evidence of guilt is strong. Here, the RTC denied Alea's motion on the ground that he "has been charged many times," having been charged under both Sections 5 and 11, which it considered indicative of criminal propensity. But the fact that Alea was charged with two offenses stemming from a single incident does not fall within the circumstance contemplated by "has been charged many times." The phrase refers to past incidents where an accused had prior charges different from the incident presently contemplated, which would tend to show criminal propensity. This interpretation aligns with the context in which the other enumerated disqualified individuals are categorized, such as recidivists, habitual offenders, those known in the community as drug addicts or troublemakers, or individuals who have undergone rehabilitation but relapsed, applying ejusdem generis. Aquino allowed plea bargaining to the lesser offense of Article II, Section 12 even when the accused was also charged under Article II, Sections 5 and 11. The RTC also denied the proposal because it inferred criminal propensity from the nature of the charges and the amount of drugs seized. However, the charges and amount of drugs were among those where plea bargaining is allowed under A.M. No. 18-03-16-SC. The framework permits Section 11, paragraph 3 possession of dangerous drugs where the quantity of shabu is less than five grams, with .01 gram to 4.99 grams eligible for plea to Section 12; and Section 5 sale of shabu where the quantity is .01 gram to .99 grams eligible for plea to Section 12. The decision states that Section 5 is eligible where the quantity of shabu falls within the range of 0.1 to 0.99 gram, as in the present case. The RTC disallowed the motion by inferring criminal propensity solely from the nature of the charges, specifically sale and distribution, and the quantity of drugs confiscated. The Court's Plea Bargaining Framework expressly permits plea bargaining in drug-related cases, including those prosecuted under Article II, Section 5, provided the quantity of shabu involved falls within the allowed range. Thus, contrary to the CA, the RTC failed to conduct an impartial and fair evaluation of Alea's qualifications considering the attendant circumstances, as required under Montierro and by the Constitution. The RTC's denial was solely predicated on the fact that he was charged with two offenses arising from a single incident, and it relied on the nature of the offense and the quantity of drugs recovered to infer his character and criminal inclination. While the RTC stated it assiduously considered the records, it failed to specify particular circumstances in the records that would disqualify Alea apart from the nature of the charges. In grant or denial of plea bargaining, the exercise of sound discretion should entail carefully reviewing the records, considering all relevant circumstances and the character of the accused as shown by the available evidence on record, to determine whether the accused should be disqualified. The mere nature of the offense and the quantity of drugs confiscated do not, in themselves, constitute sufficient grounds to deny a motion for plea bargaining, so long as such plea is allowed under A.M. No. 18-03-16-SC. To rule otherwise would undermine the Court's Plea Bargaining Framework. The trial court's exercise of discretion should neither be arbitrary nor amount to a capricious and whimsical exercise equivalent to lack of jurisdiction. The abuse must be grave as where the power is exercised in an arbitrary or despotic manner by reason of passion or personal hostility and must be so patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of positive duty or a virtual refusal to perform the duty enjoined or to act at all in contemplation of law. Grave abuse attends when the trial court manifestly acted with obstinate disregard of well-established rule of law or procedure. By denying Alea's motion based only on the fact that he faced two charges stemming from the same incident, along with the nature of the charges and quantity of drugs seized, the RTC was remiss in its duty to thoroughly evaluate the accused's qualifications and the circumstances of the case, amounting to grave abuse of discretion. Considering that Alea's proposed plea bargain conforms with the Court-issued Plea Bargaining Framework and absent any finding of the RTC that he 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 that the evidence of Alea's guilt is strong, the grant of the proposed plea bargain must follow. Pursuant to Aquino, where both the trial court and the appellate court erroneously ruled on the matter, failing to adhere to Montierro, the Court shall render a new judgment directing the trial court to permit plea bargaining and thereafter issue a judgment of conviction in accordance therewith.
• "Has Been Charged Many Times": The RTC's interpretation was contrary to the text and context of the disqualification. The phrase "has been charged many times" refers to past incidents where an accused had prior charges different from the incident presently contemplated, which would tend to show criminal propensity. The RTC itself acknowledged that paragraph 5(a) appears to refer to past incidents, but then expanded it to include a single present incident with multiple charges. This expansion was erroneous. The other disqualified individuals enumerated—recidivists, habitual offenders, those known in the community as drug addicts or troublemakers, and those who underwent rehabilitation but relapsed—are of the same class as persons with prior charges, supporting the ejusdem generis construction. Aquino allowed plea bargaining to Section 12 even when the accused was also charged under Sections 5 and 11. Therefore, Alea's two charges from one incident did not disqualify him under this ground.

• Plea Bargaining in Drug Cases — Discretion and Duty — Under Montierro and Aquino, approval or denial of plea bargaining is within the sound discretion of the trial court and is not demandable by the accused as a matter of right. However, the court must independently evaluate the qualifications of the accused and the circumstances of the case, considering objections raised by the prosecution and other relevant circumstances, including the character of the accused. It shall not allow plea bargaining if the objection is valid and supported by evidence that 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, has been charged many times, or when the evidence of guilt is strong.
• "Has Been Charged Many Times" — Ejusdem Generis — The phrase refers to past incidents or prior charges different from the present incident, not multiple charges arising from a single incident. It is construed together with the other enumerated disqualified persons—recidivists, habitual offenders, those known in the community as drug addicts or troublemakers, and those who underwent rehabilitation but relapsed—under the principle of ejusdem generis.
• Mere Nature of Offense and Quantity Not Sufficient — The mere nature of the offense and the quantity of drugs confiscated do not, in themselves, constitute sufficient grounds to deny a motion for plea bargaining, so long as the plea is allowed under A.M. No. 18-03-16-SC. To rule otherwise would undermine the Court's Plea Bargaining Framework.
• Grave Abuse of Discretion — Defined as a capricious and whimsical exercise of discretion equivalent to lack of jurisdiction; the abuse must be patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of positive duty or a virtual refusal to perform the duty enjoined or to act at all in contemplation of law. Grave abuse also attends when the trial court manifestly acted with obstinate disregard of a well-established rule of law or procedure. The RTC committed grave abuse when it denied Alea's motion based only on the two charges from a single incident and the nature and quantity of the drugs.
• Plea Bargaining Framework in Drugs Cases — A.M. No. 18-03-16-SC permits plea bargaining in drug-related cases. The framework's table lists Section 11, paragraph 3 possession of dangerous drugs where the quantity of shabu is less than five grams, with .01 gram to 4.99 grams eligible for plea to Section 12; and Section 5 sale of methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu where the quantity is .01 gram to .99 grams eligible for plea to Section 12. The decision states that Section 5 is eligible where the quantity of shabu falls within the range of 0.1 to 0.99 gram, as in the present case.

• "Contrary to the averments of the RTC, the fact that Alea was charged with two offenses stemming from a single incident does not fall within the circumstance contemplated by the Court in disqualifying an accused who "has been charged many times" from availing of plea bargaining." — This is the ratio decidendi on the proper interpretation of the disqualification ground; it rejects the RTC's expansion of the phrase to cover multiple charges from one incident.
• "Verily, the mere nature of the offense and the quantity of drugs confiscated do not, in themselves, constitute sufficient grounds to deny a motion for plea bargaining, so long as such plea is allowed under A.M. No. 18-03-16-SC." — This states the controlling rule that the RTC violated when it relied solely on the nature of the charges and the quantity of drugs to deny Alea's motion.
• "Grave abuse of discretion attends when the trial court manifestly acted with obstinate disregard of well-established rule of law or procedure." — This defines the standard applied to the RTC's failure to follow the Court's plea-bargaining guidelines.
• "Considering that Alea's proposed plea bargain conforms with the Court-issued Plea Bargaining Framework and absent any finding of the RTC that he 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 that the evidence of Alea's guilt is strong, the grant of the proposed plea bargain must follow." — This explains why the proposed plea bargain should have been granted once the disqualifying grounds were absent and the plea conformed to the framework.

• People vs. Montierro, 926 Phil. 430 (2022) — Controlling precedent; emphasized that approval or denial of plea bargaining is strictly within the sole power and discretion of the court, but also underscored the trial court's duty to independently evaluate the qualifications of the accused and the circumstances of the case regardless of whether the prosecution is for or against the proposal.
• Aquino vs. People, G.R. No. 259094, January 28, 2025 — Supplemented the guidelines in Montierro; allowed plea bargaining to the lesser offense of Article II, Section 12 of Republic Act No. 9165 even when the accused was also charged under Article II, Sections 5 and 11; directed that where both the trial court and the appellate court erroneously ruled on the matter, the Court shall render a new judgment directing the trial court to permit plea bargaining and thereafter issue a judgment of conviction.
• Alta Vista Golf and Country Club vs. The City of Cebu, 778 Phil. 685, 704 (2016) — Cited for the definition of the principle of ejusdem generis, under which a general word or phrase following an enumeration of particular and specific words of the same class is construed to include or be restricted to persons, things, or cases akin to, resembling, or of the same kind or class as those specifically mentioned.
• UCPB vs. Looyuko, 560 Phil. 581, 591 (2007) — Cited for the definition of grave abuse of discretion as a capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment equivalent to lack of jurisdiction, where the power is exercised in an arbitrary or despotic manner by reason of passion or personal hostility and is so patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of positive duty or a virtual refusal to perform the duty enjoined or to act at all in contemplation of law.
• Spouses Crisologo vs. JEWM Agro-Industrial Corp., 728 Phil. 315, 328 (2014) — Cited for the rule that grave abuse of discretion attends when the trial court manifestly acted with obstinate disregard of a well-established rule of law or procedure.

• Article II, Section 5, Republic Act No. 9165 — Illegal sale of dangerous drugs; Alea was charged under this provision, and the Plea Bargaining Framework permits a plea to Section 12 where the quantity of shabu involved falls within the allowed range.
• Article II, Section 11, Republic Act No. 9165 — Illegal possession of dangerous drugs; Alea was charged under this provision, and the framework permits a plea to Section 12 for possession of shabu less than five grams, with .01 gram to 4.99 grams eligible.
• Article II, Section 12, Republic Act No. 9165 — Possession of equipment, instrument, apparatus, and other paraphernalia for dangerous drugs; this was the lesser offense to which Alea sought to plead for both charges.
• Administrative Matter No. 18-03-16-SC — Adoption of the Plea Bargaining Framework in Drugs Cases; sets the acceptable plea bargains and quantities for drug-related offenses and was relied upon to allow Alea's proposed plea.
• OCA Circular No. 102-2023-AA — Guidelines on Plea-Bargaining in Drugs Cases; paragraphs 4 and 5 provide that plea bargaining is subject to the sound discretion of the court and that the court shall not allow plea bargaining if the offender, among others, "has been charged many times." The RTC relied on this circular but misconstrued the phrase.
• Rule 45, Rules of Court — Petition for Review on Certiorari; the procedural vehicle by which Alea elevated the case to the Supreme Court.

Caguioa (Chairperson), Inting, Gaerlan, and Dimaampao, JJ., concur.