Bason vs. People

The Court's Plea Bargaining Framework in Drugs Cases (A.M. No. 18-03-16-SC) takes precedence over any DOJ Department Circular on plea bargaining in drugs cases, and a drug dependency test is not a precondition for the approval of a plea bargaining proposal but is conducted only after approval to determine whether the accused requires treatment and rehabilitation or counselling.

Manuel Lopez Bason was charged with violation of Sections 5 and 11, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 (Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002) before Branch 18, RTC, Roxas City. The Supreme Court had promulgated A.M. No. 18-03-16-SC (Plea Bargaining Framework in Drugs Cases) on April 10, 2018, while the DOJ issued Department Circular No. 027, Series of 2018, providing its own internal guidelines on plea bargaining for RA 9165 cases. The tension between these two frameworks—particularly as to the acceptable lesser offense and the necessity of prosecution consent—forms the backdrop of the dispute. DOJ Department Circular No. 018, Series of 2022, later reconciled certain inconsistencies between the DOJ and Court-issued frameworks.

Manuel Lopez Bason was charged before Branch 18, RTC, Roxas City, with violation of Sections 5 and 11, Article II of RA 9165 in Criminal Case Nos. C-288-16 and C-289-16. The informations alleged that on July 22, 2016, in Roxas City, Bason sold one transparent plastic sachet containing 0.0769 grams of methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu) to PO1 Jiome Casabon, a poseur buyer, for P500.00, and was found in possession of three heat-sealed plastic sachets and nine opened plastic sachets containing shabu residue. Upon arraignment, Bason pleaded not guilty to both charges, and trial ensued.

After the prosecution rested its case, Bason proposed on June 5, 2018 to plead guilty to two counts of violation of Section 12, Article II of RA 9165 (possession of equipment, instrument, apparatus, and other paraphernalia for dangerous drugs), a lesser offense. The Office of the City Prosecutor of Roxas City opposed the proposal on four grounds: it had already rested its case with strong evidence against Bason; under DOJ Department Circular No. 027, the acceptable plea from Section 5 was only to Section 11; the proposed plea bargain would render the court proceedings insignificant; and there was probable cause for the filing of the charges.

Despite the prosecution's opposition, the RTC granted Bason's plea bargaining proposal on November 29, 2018. The RTC evaluated the evidence on record and found that the police officers committed procedural lapses in the chain of custody. Specifically, the RTC noted inconsistencies between PO1 Casabon's affidavit—which stated that seized items were brought to the PNP Regional Crime Laboratory Office at Camp Delgado, Iloilo City after inventory and detention—and his testimony, which revealed that he took the recovered items to his team's safe house, rested for over four hours, and only then brought the items to the crime laboratory. These inconsistencies, coupled with the lack of specifics on how the seized items were stored and preserved, created reasonable doubt on Bason's criminal liability. On December 3, 2018, after re-arraignment, the RTC found Bason guilty of two counts of violation of Section 12 and sentenced him to imprisonment of two years and four months as minimum to four years as maximum, plus a fine of P10,000.00 for each count.

The prosecution moved for reconsideration, arguing that its consent was mandatory for plea bargaining approval and that if the RTC found the evidence insufficient, it should have dismissed the case rather than granted the plea bargain. The RTC denied the motion on January 23, 2019. The OSG then filed a petition for certiorari before the CA imputing grave abuse of discretion on the RTC. The CA granted the petition on April 13, 2021, reversing the RTC orders and directing the RTC to proceed with trial. The CA denied Bason's motion for reconsideration on May 26, 2022, prompting the present petition.

• Grave Abuse of Discretion: Bason argued that the CA erred in ruling that the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion when the latter granted his plea bargaining proposal despite the prosecution's objection.
• Consent Not Required for Validity: Bason argued that the CA erred in ruling that a plea bargaining without the prosecution's consent is void, contending that this contravenes A.M. No. 18-03-16-SC.
• DOJ Circular No. 018 Cures Consent Issue: Bason argued that with the advent of DOJ Department Circular No. 018, the issue on the lack of consent in plea bargaining cases is now cured.

• Mandatory Prosecution Consent: The OCP-Roxas City argued that the prosecution's consent or conformity was mandatory in the approval of a plea bargaining proposal, citing Estipona, Jr. vs. Lobrigo, Section 2 of Rule 116 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, and the Revised Guidelines for Continuous Trial of Criminal Cases.
• Dismissal as Proper Remedy: The OCP-Roxas City argued that if the RTC's findings supported a conclusion that Bason's guilt could not be proven beyond reasonable doubt, the RTC should have dismissed the case instead of granting the plea bargaining proposal.
• Strong Evidence and Probable Cause: The OCP-Roxas City argued that it had already rested its case with strong evidence against Bason, that under DOJ Department Circular No. 027 the acceptable plea from Section 5 was only to Section 11, and that there was probable cause for the filing of the charges.

• Grave Abuse of Discretion: Whether the CA erred in ruling that the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion in approving Bason's plea bargaining proposal over the objection of the prosecution.
• DOJ Circular No. 018: Whether DOJ Department Circular No. 018 cured the issue on the lack of consent in plea bargaining cases.

• Grave Abuse of Discretion: Partially in favor of the petitioner. The RTC did not commit grave abuse of discretion in evaluating the prosecution's evidence and overruling the objection based on DOJ Circular No. 027, but it erred in failing to evaluate Bason's character as required by People vs. Montierro, necessitating remand.
• DOJ Circular No. 018: Yes. DOJ Circular No. 018 reconciled the inconsistencies between DOJ Circular No. 27 and the Court's Plea Bargaining Framework, rendering the prosecution's objection moot. The Court's framework, however, takes precedence over any DOJ circular.

• Grave Abuse of Discretion: Relying on People vs. Montierro, the Court established that its Plea Bargaining Framework in Drugs Cases takes precedence over any DOJ Department Circular or similar issuance. When the prosecution objects to a plea bargaining proposal solely on the ground that it is inconsistent with DOJ internal guidelines, the trial court may overrule the objection after determining that the proposal conforms to the Court-issued framework and is supported by the evidence and circumstances of the case. Here, the RTC properly evaluated the prosecution's evidence and found chain of custody lapses—including inconsistencies between PO1 Casabon's affidavit and testimony regarding the handling of seized items—which created reasonable doubt on Bason's criminal liability. The RTC's acceptance of the change of plea was thus proper and regular because its ruling disclosed the weakness of the prosecution's evidence. However, Montierro also requires the trial court to evaluate the character of the accused before approving a plea bargaining proposal, specifically ensuring that the accused is not a recidivist, habitual offender, known drug addict or troublemaker, one who has undergone rehabilitation but had a relapse, or one who has been charged many times. The presence of any of these conditions disqualifies the accused from plea bargaining. The records showed that the RTC did not make this evaluation. Hence, remand was proper for the RTC to determine Bason's qualifications based on his character.

• DOJ Circular No. 018: In Montierro, the Court took judicial notice of DOJ Department Circular No. 018 and recognized that its amendments reconciled the inconsistencies between DOJ Circular No. 27 and the Court's Plea Bargaining Framework regarding the acceptable plea for violation of Section 5. Under both the DOJ Circular and the Court-issued framework, the acceptable plea for a violation of Section 5 is Section 12. This rendered the prosecution's objection—based on DOJ Circular No. 027's limitation of the acceptable plea to Section 11—moot. The Court further emphasized that any plea bargaining framework it promulgates is accorded primacy over any internal DOJ guideline on the same matter. The approval of a plea of guilty to a lesser offense is ultimately subject to the sound discretion of the court, independent from the requirement of mutual agreement of the parties. The Court also clarified that a drug dependency test is not a precondition for plea bargaining approval; it is conducted only after approval to determine whether the accused needs treatment, rehabilitation, or counselling. Making it a precondition would run counter to the purpose of plea bargaining—efficient, speedy, and inexpensive disposition of cases.

• Primacy of the Court's Plea Bargaining Framework — The Supreme Court's Plea Bargaining Framework in Drugs Cases (A.M. No. 18-03-16-SC) takes precedence over any DOJ Department Circular or similar issuance regarding plea bargaining in drugs cases. Any plea bargaining framework promulgated by the Court is accorded primacy over internal DOJ guidelines on the same matter. Applied in this case to hold that the prosecution's objection based on DOJ Circular No. 027 was untenable where the proposed plea conformed to the Court-issued framework.

• Plea Bargaining Requires Consent but Subject to Court Discretion — Plea bargaining in drugs cases requires the mutual agreement of the parties, but approval is subject to the sound discretion of the court, which is independent from the consent requirement. If the prosecution objects solely on the ground that the proposal is inconsistent with DOJ internal guidelines, the trial court may overrule the objection if the proposal conforms to the Court-issued framework. However, if the objection is valid and supported by evidence—namely, that (1) the accused is a recidivist, habitual offender, known in the community as a drug addict and troublemaker, has undergone rehabilitation but had a relapse, or has been charged many times, or (2) the evidence of guilt is strong—the trial court must hear and rule on the merits of the objection. The presence of any one of these conditions disqualifies the accused from plea bargaining.

• Drug Dependency Test as Post-Approval Requirement — A drug dependency test is not a precondition for the approval of a plea bargaining proposal. It is conducted only after the trial court approves the proposal, to determine whether the accused needs treatment and rehabilitation or a counselling program. Making it a precondition would unnecessarily delay disposition of the criminal case and run counter to the purpose of plea bargaining—efficient, speedy, and inexpensive disposition. After approval, if the accused admits drug use or tests positive, he/she shall undergo treatment and rehabilitation for not less than six months, with the time credited to the penalty. If found negative, the accused shall undergo a counselling program at a rehabilitation center (for pleas to Section 12 or paragraph 3 of Section 11) or be released immediately but still undergo counselling (for pleas to Section 15).

• "The Court's Plea Bargaining Framework in Drugs Cases takes precedence over any DOJ Department Circular or other similar issuances regarding plea bargaining in drugs cases." — This passage establishes the hierarchy between Court-issued frameworks and DOJ circulars, forming the foundational principle for resolving conflicts between the two.

• "the approval of the accused's plea of guilty to a lesser offense is ultimately subject to the sound discretion of the court as its discretion to act on a plea bargaining proposal is independent from the requirement of mutual agreement of the parties." — This articulates the independence of judicial discretion from the consent requirement, a key principle distinguishing this case from the CA's ruling that voided the plea bargain for lack of prosecution consent.

• "A drug dependency test is not a precondition for the approval of a plea bargaining proposal. The test is to be conducted only after the trial court approves the plea bargaining proposal of the accused to determine whether he/she needs to be subjected to treatment and rehabilitation or undergo a counselling program at a rehabilitation center." — This is the canonical formulation of the drug dependency test rule, issued as a clarificatory guideline for trial courts, resolving the ambiguity left by Montierro.

• People vs. Montierro, G.R. No. 254564, July 26, 2022 — Controlling precedent. The Court relied extensively on Montierro for the principles that the Court's Plea Bargaining Framework prevails over DOJ circulars, that trial courts must evaluate both the accused's character and the prosecution's evidence before approving a plea bargain, and that a drug dependency test is conducted post-approval. Montierro was consolidated with Baldadera vs. People (G.R. No. 254974) and In Re: Letter of the Philippine Judges Association (A.M. No. 21-07-16-SC).

• Estipona, Jr. vs. Lobrigo, 816 Phil. 789 (2017) — Followed. Cited for the principle that the trial court's acceptance of a defendant's change of plea becomes proper and regular only if its ruling discloses the strength or weakness of the prosecution's evidence, and for the purpose of plea bargaining as an efficient, speedy, and inexpensive disposition of cases. Also cited for the proposition that plea bargaining requires mutual agreement of the parties.

• Sections 5 and 11, Article II, RA 9165 — Original charges against Bason for sale and possession of dangerous drugs, respectively. Bason was charged with both offenses arising from the same July 22, 2016 incident.

• Section 12, Article II, RA 9165 — Possession of equipment, instrument, apparatus, and other paraphernalia for dangerous drugs. This was the lesser offense to which Bason proposed to plead guilty and to which the RTC found him guilty.

• A.M. No. 18-03-16-SC — The Court's Plea Bargaining Framework in Drugs Cases, approved April 10, 2018. Held to take precedence over DOJ circulars. Also provides for the conduct of drug dependency assessment after approval of plea bargaining.

• DOJ Department Circular No. 027, Series of 2018 — DOJ's amended guidelines on plea bargaining for RA 9165 cases. Held subordinate to A.M. No. 18-03-16-SC; its limitation of the acceptable plea from Section 5 to Section 11 was superseded.

• DOJ Department Circular No. 018, Series of 2022 — Revised amended guidelines that reconciled inconsistencies with the Court's framework, making Section 12 the acceptable plea for violation of Section 5. Rendered the prosecution's objection based on Circular No. 027 moot.

• Rule 45, Rules of Court — Procedural vehicle for Bason's petition to the Supreme Court.

• Rule 65, Rules of Court — Procedural vehicle for the OSG's certiorari petition before the CA.

Gesmundo, C.J., Leonen, SAJ., Caguioa, Hernando, Zalameda, M. Lopez, Gaerlan, Rosario, J. Lopez, Marquez, and Singh, JJ., concurred. Lazaro-Javier and Dimaampao, JJ., were on official business.

• Kho, Jr., J. — Filed a separate concurring and dissenting opinion. The provided text does not contain the substance of this separate opinion.