Aquino vs. People

A trial court may overrule the prosecution's objection to a plea bargaining proposal in dangerous drugs cases where the objection is based solely on the accused's non-compliance with DOJ internal guidelines, provided the proposal conforms to the Court-issued Plea Bargaining Framework in Drugs Cases; grounds not raised in the prosecution's objection are deemed waived under the principle of the Omnibus Motion Rule.

Rodulfo Ferraren Aquino a.k.a. "Yoyon" was the accused in two criminal cases for violations of Republic Act No. 9165, while the People of the Philippines was the prosecution. The dispute implicated the plea bargaining framework for dangerous drugs cases under A.M. No. 18-03-16-SC, Rule 116, Section 2 of the Rules of Court, and DOJ Department Circular No. 027. The governing jurisprudence had been modified by People vs. Montierro, which allowed courts to overrule prosecution objections based solely on DOJ internal guidelines inconsistent with the Court's plea bargaining framework.

On May 22, 2019, two Informations were filed against Rodulfo Ferraren Aquino a.k.a. "Yoyon" in Dumaguete City. The first, docketed as Criminal Case No. 2019-26185, charged illegal sale of dangerous drugs under Section 5 of Republic Act No. 9165, alleging that on or about May 21, 2019, Aquino sold and/or delivered to a poseur-buyer one heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet containing 0.18 gram of methamphetamine hydrochloride, commonly known as shabu. The second, docketed as Criminal Case No. 2019-26186, charged illegal possession of dangerous drugs under Section 11 of the same law, alleging that on or about the same date, Aquino possessed thirteen heat-sealed transparent plastic sachets containing an aggregate net weight of 1.84 grams of shabu.

Aquino was arraigned on May 27, 2019 and pleaded not guilty. He thereafter filed a Motion for Plea Bargaining, asking the RTC to allow him to plead guilty to the lesser offense of violation of illegal possession of drug paraphernalia under Section 12 of Republic Act No. 9165, invoking A.M. No. 18-03-16-SC. The prosecution filed a Comment/Opposition, stating that while it consented to the plea bargain offer in Criminal Case No. 2019-26186 for illegal possession, it could not agree to the plea bargaining proposal in Criminal Case No. 2019-26185 for illegal sale because it contravened DOJ Department Circular No. 027.

In its May 30, 2019 Order, the RTC overruled the prosecution's objection and granted Aquino's motion. The RTC noted that the government prosecutor had no objection to the plea to Section 12 in Criminal Case No. 2019-26186 but objected in Criminal Case No. 2019-26185 based on the DOJ revised guidelines; nevertheless, considering that the plea bargaining was in accordance with the Supreme Court Resolution on Plea Bargaining Framework in Drug Cases and that the quantities involved were only 0.18 gram and 1.84 grams of shabu, the motion was granted. Aquino was re-arraigned and pleaded guilty to two charges of violation of Section 12 of Republic Act No. 9165. On the same day, the RTC rendered its Joint Judgment finding Aquino guilty beyond reasonable doubt of illegal possession of drug paraphernalia under Section 12.

The prosecution moved for reconsideration, insisting that the consent of the prosecution is necessary in plea bargaining, but the RTC denied the motion in its June 21, 2019 Order. The People, through the Office of the Solicitor General, then filed an original action for certiorari before the Court of Appeals, imputing grave abuse of discretion on the RTC. The Court of Appeals granted the petition and annulled the RTC's orders and Joint Judgment, holding that while A.M. No. 18-03-16-SC allows an accused to plead to the lesser offense of violation of Section 12 from an original charge of violation of Section 5, the consent of both the offended party and the prosecutor is still required under Rule 116, Section 2 of the Rules of Court. Aquino sought reconsideration, but the Court of Appeals denied it. The RTC had made no determination as to whether Aquino 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, nor as to the strength of the evidence, because the proposal for plea bargaining was submitted immediately after arraignment and before the prosecution could present its evidence.

• Plea Bargaining Under A.M. No. 18-03-16-SC: Aquino invoked A.M. No. 18-03-16-SC in moving the RTC to allow him to plead guilty to the lesser offense of violation of Section 12 of Republic Act No. 9165.

• Prosecution Consent Required: The prosecution asserted that its consent is necessary for plea bargaining and that it could not agree to the plea bargaining proposal in Criminal Case No. 2019-26185.
• DOJ Department Circular No. 027: The prosecution objected that plea bargaining from illegal sale under Section 5 to violation of Section 12 is not allowed under DOJ Department Circular No. 027.
• Grave Abuse of Discretion: The People, through the Office of the Solicitor General, filed a certiorari petition before the Court of Appeals, imputing grave abuse of discretion on the RTC for issuing the May 30, 2019 and June 21, 2019 Orders and the Joint Judgment.

• Propriety of Plea Bargaining to a Lesser Offense: Whether the RTC correctly allowed Aquino to plead guilty to violation of Section 12 of Republic Act No. 9165 as a lesser offense from the charge of illegal sale under Section 5 despite the prosecution's objection based on DOJ Department Circular No. 027.
• Prosecution Consent: Whether the consent of the prosecutor is required for plea bargaining under Rule 116, Section 2 of the Rules of Court such that its absence invalidates the plea.
• Waiver of Unraised Grounds: Whether the prosecution's objection based solely on DOJ internal guidelines waives other possible grounds for opposing plea bargaining under the principle of the Omnibus Motion Rule.
• Remand or Reinstatement: Whether the case must be remanded to determine the strength of the evidence and the character of the accused, or whether the RTC's approval and Joint Judgment may be reinstated.

• Propriety of Plea Bargaining to a Lesser Offense: Yes. The RTC correctly approved Aquino's plea bargaining proposal because the objection was based solely on DOJ Department Circular No. 027, which is inconsistent with the Court-issued Plea Bargaining Framework in Drugs Cases; Montierro allows courts to overrule such objection.
• Prosecution Consent: No, not absolutely. While Rule 116, Section 2 generally requires consent, the Court may overrule a prosecution objection grounded solely on DOJ internal guidelines that contradict the Court's framework.
• Waiver of Unraised Grounds: Yes. Grounds not raised in the prosecution's objection are deemed waived under the principle behind the Omnibus Motion Rule.
• Remand or Reinstatement: No remand is required in this case. Because the prosecution objected solely on the DOJ circular, it waived other grounds; the RTC's May 30, 2019 Order and Joint Judgment are reinstated.

• Propriety of Plea Bargaining to a Lesser Offense: The RTC granted Aquino's motion in Criminal Case No. 2019-26185, and the prosecution's objection rested on DOJ Department Circular No. 027, which disallowed plea bargaining from Section 5 to Section 12. During the pendency of the case, People vs. Montierro modified Sayre vs. Judge Xenos. Montierro held that courts may overrule the prosecution's objection 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, although in accordance with the Court-issued Plea Bargaining Framework. The Court quoted Montierro: courts are not bound by any resolution or administrative issuance of the Secretary of Justice; it is within the Court's sole discretion to impose rules governing proceedings, including the Plea Bargaining Framework in Drugs Cases. Courts may overrule an objection when it has no valid basis, is not supported by evidence, solely tends to undermine the Court's framework, or is solely to the effect that it will weaken the government's drug campaign. But courts cannot overrule an objection if grounded on evidence showing the accused is not qualified, or when the plea does not conform to the Court-issued rule or framework. The Court also observed that DOJ Department Circular No. 027 was revoked by DOJ Department Circular No. 18, which now allows an accused to plead guilty to violation of Section 12 from an original charge of violation of Section 5. Thus, the RTC was correct in approving Aquino's plea bargaining proposal in Criminal Case No. 2019-26185, and the Court of Appeals erred in annulling it.

• Prosecution Consent: Rule 116, Section 2 requires the consent of the offended party and the prosecutor for a plea to a lesser offense. However, Montierro clarified that the trial court's discretion is not so narrowly constrained. The Court may overrule the prosecution's objection when it is based solely on an executive issuance or policy that contradicts a Court-issued rule on plea bargaining. This is not an intrusion into the Executive's authority to prosecute but a recognition of the Court's exclusive rule-making power under the Constitution. The prosecution's insistence on consent based on DOJ Department Circular No. 027 therefore did not preclude the RTC from approving the plea bargain.

• Waiver of Unraised Grounds: The Court noted that Aquino submitted his proposal immediately after arraignment and before the prosecution could present evidence, leaving the RTC no opportunity to determine the strength of the evidence. The RTC also made no determination as to whether Aquino 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. In past cases, such as Alvero vs. People, the Court remanded for these determinations. However, the Court observed that remand had caused delay. The prosecution never submitted such grounds to object to the motion. Forcing a trial court to determine grounds not raised by the prosecution would arrogate the Executive's power to decide whether and on what ground to object. The Court applied the principle behind the Omnibus Motion Rule under Rule 15, Section 8: a motion attacking a pleading, order, judgment, or proceeding must include all objections then available, and all objections not included are deemed waived. Thus, where the prosecution's objection is anchored only on one or a few but not all grounds, all other possible grounds not raised are deemed waived. Because the prosecution objected solely on DOJ Department Circular No. 027, it waived other grounds, and no remand was necessary.

• Remand or Reinstatement: The Court promulgated supplementary guidelines. First, where the prosecution's objection is grounded on only a few but not all possible grounds, it waives the grounds not raised. Second, where the prosecution raised multiple grounds but the trial court ruled only on one and was silent on the rest, the trial court shall be directed to rule on the pending issues under Montierro and this case. Third, where the records are incomplete to determine the scenario, the trial court shall be directed to rule again. The Court also laid down comprehensive guidelines for plea bargaining in dangerous drugs cases, including that offers must be in writing; the lesser offense must be necessarily included; a drug dependency assessment shall be ordered; mutual agreement and court approval are required; unraised grounds are waived; no plea bargaining if the objection is valid and supported by evidence of recidivism, habitual offending, drug addiction, relapse, many charges, or strong evidence of guilt; no plea bargaining if the proposed plea does not conform to the Court-issued framework; judges may overrule an objection based solely on DOJ internal rules; if the prosecution objects on the specified grounds, the trial court must hear and rule on the merits; and the law on probation applies in certain cases. Under these guidelines, because the RTC ruled correctly and the Court of Appeals ruled incorrectly, the correct judgment is reinstated. The May 30, 2019 Order and Joint Judgment were reinstated.

• Plea Bargaining in Dangerous Drugs Cases — Plea bargaining in cases involving violations of Republic Act No. 9165 is governed by the Court-issued Plea Bargaining Framework in Drugs Cases and the guidelines in People vs. Montierro, as supplemented by this case. A trial court may overrule the prosecution's objection if it is based solely on the ground that the accused's proposal is inconsistent with the acceptable plea bargain under any internal rules or guidelines of the DOJ, although in accordance with the Court-issued framework. The court has no jurisdiction to overrule an objection if it is grounded on evidence showing the accused is not qualified, or when the plea does not conform to the Court-issued rule or framework. Plea bargaining requires mutual agreement and court approval, but acceptance is not demandable as a matter of right; it is addressed to the sound discretion of the court.

• Omnibus Motion Rule Applied to Prosecution Objections — Under the principle of the Omnibus Motion Rule in Rule 15, Section 8 of the Rules of Court, where the prosecution's objection to a plea bargaining proposal is anchored only on one or a few but not all possible grounds, all other possible grounds not raised are deemed waived. This prevents the trial court from being forced to determine grounds the prosecution itself did not raise, which would intrude into the Executive's power to prosecute.

• Remand Guidelines in Plea Bargaining Cases — The Court refined the Montierro guidelines on remand. Where the prosecution raised multiple grounds but the trial court ruled on only one and was silent on the rest, the trial court shall be directed to rule on the pending issues under Montierro and this case. Where the records are incomplete to determine the applicable scenario, the trial court shall be directed to rule again. If the trial court or appellate court ruled correctly, the correct judgment shall be reinstated or affirmed. If both ruled incorrectly, a new judgment shall be entered directing the trial court to allow plea bargaining and render a guilty verdict accordingly.

• Comprehensive Plea Bargaining Guidelines in Dangerous Drugs Cases — The Court laid down the following guidelines:

  • 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 proposed must necessarily be included in the offense charged.
  • Upon receipt of a compliant proposal, the judge shall order a drug dependency assessment; if the accused admits drug use or tests positive, treatment and rehabilitation for not less than six months, credited to penalty and after-care/follow-up if penalty still unserved; if negative, release on time served, otherwise serve sentence in jail minus counselling period at rehabilitation center.
  • Plea bargaining requires mutual agreement and remains subject to court approval; acceptance is not demandable as a matter of right but is addressed to the sound discretion of the court, taking into account objections raised by the prosecution and other relevant circumstances, including the character of the accused.
  • Where the prosecution raises only a few but not all possible grounds in its comment or opposition, it waives the grounds not raised, similar to the Omnibus Motion Rule.
  • 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, or has been charged many times; or when the evidence of guilt is strong.
  • Plea bargaining shall not be allowed when the proposed plea bargain does not conform to the Court-issued Plea Bargaining Framework in Drugs Cases.
  • Judges may overrule the objection of the prosecution if it is based solely on the ground that the proposal is inconsistent with the acceptable plea bargain under any internal rules or guidelines of the DOJ, although in accordance with the Court-issued framework.
  • If the prosecution objects due to the circumstances in item no. 6, the trial court is mandated to hear the prosecution's objection and rule on the merits; if meritorious, it shall order continuation of criminal proceedings. The trial court shall hear and receive evidence on any and all grounds raised and must rule on each ground accordingly.
  • If an accused applies for probation in offenses punishable under Republic Act No. 9165, other than illegal drug trafficking or pushing under Section 5 in relation to Section 24, the law on probation shall apply.
  • Where the prosecution raised multiple grounds but the trial court ruled on only one and was silent on the rest, either the appellate court or this Court shall direct the trial court to rule on pending issues under Montierro and this case.
  • Where the records before either the appellate court or this Court are incomplete to determine the scenario, the trial court shall be directed to rule again following Montierro and this case.
  • If the trial court or appellate court ruled correctly, the correct judgment shall be reinstated or affirmed.

  • If both the trial court and appellate court ruled incorrectly, a new judgment shall be entered directing the trial court to allow plea bargaining and render a guilty verdict accordingly.

  • Executive Power to Prosecute and Judicial Rule-Making — The power to prosecute is purely an Executive function, and the prosecutor has wide discretion over whether, what, and whom to charge. However, when a court overrules a prosecution objection solely grounded on an executive issuance or policy that contradicts a Court-issued rule on plea bargaining, it is not an intrusion into the Executive's authority but a recognition of the Court's exclusive rule-making power under the Constitution.

• "Thus, courts may overrule the objection of the prosecution when the objection has no valid basis, or is not supported by evidence, or if the objection solely tends to undermine the Court's plea bargaining framework, or that the objection is solely to the effect that it will weaken the drugs campaign of the government." — This passage, quoted from People vs. Montierro, states the circumstances under which a trial court may overrule the prosecution's objection to a plea bargaining proposal in dangerous drugs cases.
• "In effect, where the prosecution's objection is anchored only on one or a few—but not all—grounds for opposing such proposal, all other possible grounds not thus raised shall be deemed waived." — This is the Court's ratio for applying the principle of the Omnibus Motion Rule to prosecution objections in plea bargaining, making the failure to raise other grounds a waiver.
• "Forcing a trial court to make a determination as to the existence and propriety of grounds for objecting to a plea bargaining proposal where the prosecution itself did not even bother to propound such grounds in the first place is akin to arrogating upon such court the power to determine whether to interpose an objection, what ground to use for such objection, both of which are highly critical determinations reserved solely for the Executive." — This passage explains why the Court refused to remand the case for determinations on grounds the prosecution never raised, grounding the waiver rule in the separation of powers.

• People vs. Montierro, 926 Phil. 430 (2022) — Controlling precedent. It modified Sayre and held that courts may overrule a prosecution objection to plea bargaining in drugs cases if the objection is based solely on inconsistency with DOJ internal rules or guidelines, although the proposal conforms to the Court-issued Plea Bargaining Framework. It also laid down the guidelines adopted and supplemented in this case.
• Sayre vs. Judge Xenos, 871 Phil. 86 (2020) — Prior ruling that a prosecution objection based on DOJ internal guidelines prevented mutual agreement and required continuation of proceedings. It was modified by Montierro.
• Estipona vs. Judge Lobrigo, 816 Phil. 789, 813 (2017) — Cited for the chief virtues advanced by plea bargaining: speed, economy, and finality.
• Webb vs. De Leon, 317 Phil. 758, 799-800 (1995) — Cited for the principle that the power to prosecute is purely an Executive function and that the prosecutor has wide discretion over whether, what, and whom to charge.
• Alvero vs. People, G.R. No. 260214, April 17, 2023 — Cited as an illustration of the Court's prior practice of remanding cases to the trial court to determine whether the accused may be allowed to plea bargain, specifically whether the accused 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 whether the evidence of guilt is strong.
• Bason vs. People, G.R. No. 262664, October 3, 2023 — Cited in the concurring opinion of Justice Inting for the clarification that a drug dependency test is not a precondition for approval of a plea bargaining proposal; the test is conducted after approval to determine whether treatment, rehabilitation, or counselling is needed.

• Rule 116, Section 2, Rules of Court — Governs plea of guilty to a lesser offense. It requires the consent of the offended party and the prosecutor and allows the accused to plead to a lesser offense necessarily included in the charge at arraignment or after arraignment but before trial. The Court noted its formulation requires the proposal before trial, which can cause delay, but held that a prosecution objection based solely on DOJ internal guidelines may be overruled.
• Rule 15, Section 8, Rules of Court — Omnibus motion rule. A motion attacking a pleading, order, judgment, or proceeding must include all objections then available, and all objections not included are deemed waived. Applied by analogy to prosecution objections to plea bargaining.
• Rule 45, Rules of Court — Petition for Review on Certiorari, the procedural vehicle for Aquino's recourse to the Supreme Court.
• Rule 65, Rules of Court — Petition for Certiorari, the procedural vehicle for the People's original action before the Court of Appeals.
• Section 5, Republic Act No. 9165 — Illegal sale of dangerous drugs, the original charge in Criminal Case No. 2019-26185.
• Section 11, Republic Act No. 9165 — Illegal possession of dangerous drugs, the original charge in Criminal Case No. 2019-26186.
• Section 12, Republic Act No. 9165 — Illegal possession of drug paraphernalia, the lesser offense to which Aquino pleaded guilty.
• A.M. No. 18-03-16-SC — Adoption of the Plea Bargaining Framework in Drug Cases, invoked by Aquino and relied upon by the RTC.
• DOJ Department Circular No. 027 — Amended Guidelines on Plea Bargaining for Republic Act No. 9165, which disallowed plea bargaining from Section 5 to Section 12; the basis of the prosecution's objection. It was later revoked by DOJ Department Circular No. 18.
• DOJ Department Circular No. 18 — Revised Amended Guidelines on Plea Bargaining for Republic Act No. 9165, which allowed an accused to plead guilty to violation of Section 12 from an original charge of violation of Section 5.
• Constitution — Rule-Making Power of the Court — The majority quotes Montierro's statement that overruling an executive issuance or policy that contradicts a Court-issued rule on plea bargaining is a recognition of the Court's exclusive rule-making power as enshrined in the Constitution.

Gesmundo, C.J., Caguioa, Hernando, Lazaro-Javier, Zalameda, M. Lopez, Gaerlan, Rosario, J. Lopez, Marquez, and Kho, Jr., JJ., concur. Leonen, SAJ., on official business but left a concurring vote. Inting, J., see concurring opinion. Singh, J., on leave.

• Concurring Opinion of Justice Inting — He concurred with the ponencia. He clarified that the requirement of remanding cases to lower courts under Montierro should be refined consistent with efficiency. He emphasized that under Bason vs. People, a drug dependency test is not a precondition for approval of a plea bargaining proposal; the test is conducted after approval to determine whether the accused needs treatment and rehabilitation or counselling. He noted that Aquino refined Montierro without incorporating Bason, so Bason guidelines remain an important part of the plea bargaining framework, particularly in interpreting guideline three of Montierro. In cases where the Aquino guidelines require remand, trial courts are still required to conduct a drug dependency assessment pursuant to A.M. No. 18-03-16-SC and the guidelines set forth in his opinion.