Biron vs. People

A trial court may overrule the prosecution's objection to a drugs-case plea bargain that conforms to the Court-issued Plea Bargaining Framework when the objection is based solely on inconsistency with Department of Justice internal rules, but must hear and rule on an objection grounded on the accused's recidivism, habitual offending, or strong evidence of guilt.

Petitioners were accused in three drugs prosecutions under Republic Act No. 9165, the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, which penalizes sale, possession, and related drug offenses with varying severity. To govern negotiated pleas in such cases, the Supreme Court issued A.M. No. 18-03-16-SC adopting a Plea-Bargaining Framework in Drugs Cases that specifies acceptable lesser offenses according to drug type and quantity. The Department of Justice separately maintained internal guidelines for prosecutors, embodied in DOJ Circular No. 27, on when to consent to proposed pleas.

Jonathan Gabriel Biron, Arjay Mendez, and Eric Ebuenga Palomer were charged in three Informations dated November 11, 2018 for incidents allegedly occurring at about 5:05 in the afternoon of November 10, 2018 at Purok 1, San Ramon, Tabaco City. In Criminal Case No. T-7306, Biron was charged with violation of Section 5 of Republic Act No. 9165 for selling one heat-sealed sachet marked CBR1 containing 0.1015 gram of shabu to PO2 Christian Romano as poseur-buyer for ₱500.00. In Criminal Case No. T-7307, Biron was charged with violation of Section 11 for possessing one sachet marked CBR2 containing 0.0738 gram of shabu. In Criminal Case No. T-7308, all three petitioners were charged with violation of Section 5, with Biron allegedly selling two sachets marked CBR3 and CBR5 containing 0.0913 gram and 0.0855 gram of shabu for ₱1,000.00 to Mendez and Palomer as buyers acting in conspiracy with Biron.

After pleading not guilty, petitioners filed two motions to enter into plea bargaining and plead guilty to the lesser offense under Section 12, Article II of RA 9165, invoking A.M. No. 18-03-16-SC. The Deputy City Prosecutor opposed, asserting that plea to lesser charges under RA 9165 required concurrence or approval of the public prosecutor and arresting officers. The Regional Trial Court granted the motions in Orders dated May 31, 2019, and on June 21, 2019 petitioners pleaded guilty to the lesser offense under Section 12. Thereafter, in Decisions both dated June 28, 2019, the trial court found Biron guilty in T-7306 and T-7307 and all petitioners guilty in T-7308 of violation of Section 12, imposing an indeterminate penalty of two years to four years and a ₱10,000.00 fine in each case, plus conditions to submit to risk assessment and rehabilitation, cooperate with the anti-illegal drug campaign and serve as lecturers, avoid illegal activities, and incorporate such conditions in probation.

The prosecution sought consolidation and reconsideration, which the trial court denied in its Order dated September 24, 2019 on the ground that the Supreme Court administrative matter, issued in exercise of rule-making power, prevailed over the Department of Justice circular relied upon by the prosecutor.

• Discretion of Trial Court: Petitioners insisted that approval or denial of the motion to plea bargain rests upon the discretion of the trial court.
• Conformity with Court Framework: Petitioners maintained that the orders allowing plea bargaining conformed with A.M. No. 18-03-16-SC which allows those charged with violations of Sections 5 and 11 of RA 9165 to plea bargain to the lesser offense under Section 12.
• Effect of Requiring Prosecution Consent: Petitioners argued that strict adherence to the Department of Justice Circular on plea bargaining would result in no offer of plea bargaining for charges under Section 5 of RA 9165 ever being entertained, and that requiring prosecution consent defeats the purpose of the rule allowing plea bargaining.

• Mutual Agreement Required: Respondent countered through the Office of the Solicitor General that Estipona, Jr. vs. Lobrigo did not abandon the essence of plea bargaining as a mutually satisfactory disposition between prosecution and accused, and absent prior agreement there is nothing for the court to approve.
• Not Necessarily Included: Respondent argued that Section 12 of RA 9165 cannot be considered a lesser offense necessarily included in Sections 5 and 11.
• Grave Abuse and Double Jeopardy: Respondent maintained that the Regional Trial Court acted with grave abuse of discretion in issuing the decisions despite vehement objection, so double jeopardy would not attach, and that the decisions were promulgated without giving the prosecution opportunity to present evidence.
• Continuing Objection: Respondent argued, citing Sayre vs. Xenos, that the prosecution's objection should be considered a continuing objection and the criminal cases should proceed to trial.

• Plea Bargaining – Prosecution Consent and Judicial Discretion: Whether the Court of Appeals erred in reversing the Regional Trial Court's grant of plea bargaining despite the prosecution's objection.
• Lesser Offense – Necessary Inclusion: Whether pleading guilty to Section 12 of RA 9165 is proper as a lesser offense necessarily included in Sections 5 and 11 of RA 9165.
• Grave Abuse and Double Jeopardy: Whether the trial court's allowance of the plea despite objection constituted grave abuse of discretion preventing double jeopardy from attaching.

• Plea Bargaining – Prosecution Consent and Judicial Discretion: Yes. No grave abuse attended the allowance of a framework-compliant plea where the objection rested solely on internal Department of Justice guidelines, though remand is required to hear any evidence-based objection.
• Lesser Offense – Necessary Inclusion: Yes, in framework terms. A proposal conforming to the Court-issued Plea Bargaining Framework in Drugs Cases, including Section 12 pleas for the charged quantities of shabu, is allowable and subject to the Montierro requisites.
• Grave Abuse and Double Jeopardy: No grave abuse was established on this record to sustain outright nullification; the Court of Appeals reversal was set aside and the cases remanded for determination of valid objection grounds.

• Plea Bargaining – Prosecution Consent and Judicial Discretion: As a rule, plea bargaining requires mutual agreement and remains subject to court approval, with acceptance addressed entirely to sound judicial discretion considering relevant circumstances including the character of the accused. Under People vs. Montierro, judges may overrule prosecution objection based solely on inconsistency with Department of Justice internal rules though the proposal conforms to the Court's framework, but must not allow bargaining if the objection is valid and supported by evidence that the offender is a recidivist, habitual offender, known drug addict and troublemaker, underwent rehabilitation but relapsed, has been charged many times, or the evidence of guilt is strong. Here the trial court anchored its ruling on A.M. No. 18-03-16-SC and the quantities of 0.1015, 0.0738, 0.0913 and 0.0855 grams of shabu within the allowable 0.01 to 0.99 grams range, plus petitioners' desire for probation and rehabilitation; because the prosecution claimed denial of opportunity to present evidence, remand was ordered to hear whether either disqualifying circumstance exists.
• Lesser Offense – Necessary Inclusion: Offers must be initiated by formal written motion and the proposed lesser offense must necessarily be included in the offense charged, with bargaining disallowed when non-conforming to the Court framework. The trial court's reliance on the framework's allowance of a Section 12 plea for Section 5 charges involving the stated quantities of methamphetamine hydrochloride was thus given effect, subject on remand to compliance with drug dependency assessment, treatment and rehabilitation, and other framework conditions.
• Grave Abuse and Double Jeopardy: A decision rendered with grave abuse amounting to lack of jurisdiction prevents double jeopardy from attaching, which underpinned the Court of Appeals' nullification. Since the trial court's action was instead governed by the Montierro rule permitting rejection of a purely guideline-based objection, grave abuse was not established to justify outright reversal, requiring that the appellate decisions be set aside and the cases returned for a merits ruling on any evidence-backed objection and for drug dependency testing.

• Plea bargaining in drugs cases — Plea bargaining requires the mutual agreement of the parties and remains subject to court approval; acceptance of an offer to plead guilty to a lesser offense is not demandable as a matter of right but is addressed entirely to the sound discretion of the court, taking into account relevant circumstances including the character of the accused. Applied here to sustain judicial authority to grant or deny framework-compliant proposals despite party positions.
• Judicial overruling of prosecution objection based on DOJ guidelines — Judges may overrule prosecution objection based solely on inconsistency with Department of Justice internal rules or guidelines though the proposal accords with the Court-issued Plea Bargaining Framework in Drugs Cases. Applied to reject an objection anchored on prosecutorial policy rather than evidence.
• Valid evidence-based objection to plea bargaining — The court shall not allow plea bargaining if the objection is valid and supported by evidence that (a) the offender 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 (b) the evidence of guilt is strong, in which case the court must hear the objection and, if meritorious, order continuation of criminal proceedings. Applied to require remand to hear the prosecution's objection on these grounds.
• Plea Bargaining Framework compliance and procedure — Offers must be initiated in writing by formal motion for a lesser offense necessarily included in the charge; upon receipt of a compliant proposal the judge shall order drug dependency assessment with treatment, rehabilitation, crediting, or release consequences; and non-conforming proposals shall not be allowed. Applied to direct remand for drug dependency testing and framework compliance.

• "As a rule, plea bargaining requires the mutual agreement of the parties and remains subject to the approval of the court." — States the foundational rule balancing prosecutorial consent and judicial approval, central to resolving whether the trial court could act despite objection.
• "The court shall not allow plea bargaining if the objection to the plea bargaining is valid and supported by evidence to the effect that:" — Introduces the two evidence-based disqualifiers that the trial court on remand must examine before finally approving the plea.
• "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." — Provides the controlling justification for setting aside the Court of Appeals' outright nullification of the framework-compliant pleas.
• "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." — Defines the required remand procedure when the prosecution invokes recidivism or strong evidence of guilt.

• Estipona, Jr. vs. Lobrigo, 816 Phil. 789 (2017) — Cited by respondent as allowing plea bargaining but asserted not to have abandoned mutual agreement between prosecution and accused; prior framework authority for drugs-case pleas.
• Sayre vs. Xenos, G.R. No. 244413, G.R. No. 244415-16, February 18, 2020 — Cited by the Court of Appeals and respondent for the requirements of pleading to a lesser offense, treatment of prosecutorial refusal as continuing objection absent mutual agreement, and harmonization of Court rule-making with DOJ Circular No. 27 as prosecutorial guidelines.
• People vs. Montierro, G.R. No. 254564 (July 26, 2022) — Controlling En Banc precedent establishing the nine enumerated plea-bargaining guidelines applied to resolve the ultimate issue, including overruling guideline-based objections and remanding for evidence-based objections; consolidated with Baldadera vs. People and related administrative matters.

• Sections 5, 11 and 12, Article II, Republic Act No. 9165 — Sections 5 and 11 penalize sale and possession of dangerous drugs as charged, while Section 12 penalizing possession of equipment, apparatus and paraphernalia was the lesser offense pleaded to and imposed with 2 to 4 years imprisonment and ₱10,000 fine.
• Section 2, Rule 116, Rules of Court — Requisites for pleading guilty to a lesser offense necessarily included in the offense charged, invoked by the Court of Appeals as not disregarded by plea-bargaining jurisprudence.
• A.M. No. 18-03-16-SC, Plea-Bargaining Framework in Drugs Cases — Court issuance allowing Section 5 charges involving 0.01 to 0.99 grams of shabu to be plea-bargained to Section 12, relied upon by the trial court and petitioners and given primacy over conflicting prosecutorial guidelines.
• DOJ Circular No. 27 — Internal prosecutorial guidelines on acceptable pleas, treated under Sayre and Montierro as guidance for prosecutors that cannot alone defeat a framework-compliant proposal.

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