Pascua vs. People of the Philippines

Probation eligibility is determined by the offense of ultimate conviction, not the offense originally charged. An accused originally charged with violation of Section 5 (sale/trading) of RA 9165 who pleads guilty to the lesser offense of Section 12 (possession of paraphernalia) is not disqualified from probation under Section 24 of RA 9165, which applies only to those convicted of drug trafficking or pushing.

Bert Pascua y Valdez was charged with violations of Sections 5 and 11 of Republic Act No. 9165 (Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002) for allegedly selling 0.024 gram and possessing 0.054 gram of methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu), respectively. Initially pleading not guilty, he subsequently sought to enter a plea bargaining agreement to plead guilty to the lesser offense of violation of Section 12 (possession of equipment, instrument, apparatus, and other paraphernalia for dangerous drugs) in both cases. The Regional Trial Court approved the plea bargain but declared him ineligible for probation in the case originally involving the sale charge, interpreting A.M. No. 18-03-16-SC as extending the probation disqualification under Section 24 of RA 9165 to accused persons originally charged with Section 5 offenses even if convicted of lesser offenses.

• Charges: Two Informations were filed before the Regional Trial Court of Balanga City, Bataan, docketed as Criminal Case Nos. 18805 and 18806. The first charged Pascua with selling 0.024 gram of methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu) in violation of Section 5, Article II of RA 9165. The second charged him with possessing 0.054 gram of shabu in violation of Section 11 of the same Act.
• Initial Plea and Plea Bargaining: Upon arraignment, Pascua initially pleaded "not guilty" to both charges. He subsequently filed a Motion to Allow Accused to Enter into Plea Bargaining Agreement, offering to plead guilty to the lesser offense of violation of Section 12, Article II of RA 9165 (possession of equipment, instrument, apparatus, and other paraphernalia for dangerous drugs) in both cases. The prosecution opposed the motion, citing Department of Justice Department Circular No. 027-18 which requires State consent for plea bargaining.
• RTC Orders on Plea Bargaining: On January 29, 2019, the RTC issued separate Orders allowing Pascua to enter a plea of guilty to the lesser offense of Section 12 in both cases. However, in the Order pertaining to Criminal Case No. 18805 (the sale case), the court expressly stated that Pascua was "ineligible to apply for probation." In the other case (No. 18806), the RTC directed the probation officer to conduct an investigation after Pascua applied for probation.
• Motion for Reconsideration: Pascua filed a motion for reconsideration regarding the ineligibility declaration in Case No. 18805, arguing that A.M. No. 18-03-16-SC prohibits probation only when the accused is actually found guilty of sale of illegal drugs under Section 5, not when found guilty of the lesser offense under Section 12. The RTC denied the motion on February 26, 2019, holding that probation is discretionary and that the framers of A.M. No. 18-03-16-SC intended to disqualify persons charged with sale who avail of plea bargaining to prevent circumvention of Section 24 of RA 9165.
• CA Ruling: Pascua filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals. In a Decision dated September 13, 2019, the CA affirmed the RTC, holding that a reasonable interpretation of A.M. No. 18-03-16-SC would lead to the conclusion that the Supreme Court intended for drug trafficking and pushing (Section 5) to remain covered by the "no probation rule" under Section 24, Article II of RA 9165 even if the accused pleads to a lesser offense. The CA reasoned that otherwise, all accused of sale would simply plead to Section 12 to avail of probation. The CA also noted that probation is discretionary even if eligibility exists.

• Determination of Eligibility: Petitioner maintained that eligibility for probation is determined by the offense of which the accused is ultimately convicted, not the offense originally charged. Since he was convicted of Section 12 (possession of paraphernalia) rather than Section 5 (sale), he is not covered by the disqualification in Section 24 of RA 9165 which applies only to those convicted of drug trafficking or pushing.
• Effect of Plea Bargaining: Petitioner argued that A.M. No. 18-03-16-SC should apply to the lesser offense to which he pleaded guilty, not the offense originally charged. He contended that the "Remarks" column in the said A.M. No. merely recognizes the general rule in Section 24 and does not extend the disqualification to those convicted of lesser offenses.

• Intent of A.M. No. 18-03-16-SC: Respondent countered that the Supreme Court intended for drug trafficking and pushing to still be covered by the "no probation rule" under Section 24 of RA 9165 even after plea bargaining to a lesser offense. The CA opined that interpreting the rule otherwise would lead to absurdity, as every person accused of sale would simply plead guilty to Section 12 to avail of probation and be released scot-free.
• Discretionary Nature of Probation: Respondent argued that even assuming Pascua was eligible for probation, the grant thereof is still within the sound discretion of the lower court.

• Probation Eligibility after Plea Bargaining: Whether the CA correctly ruled that the RTC did not gravely abuse its discretion in holding that Pascua is ineligible for probation in Criminal Case No. 18805 after pleading guilty to the lesser offense of violation of Section 12, Article II of RA 9165, despite being originally charged with violation of Section 5 thereof.

• Grave Abuse of Discretion: The CA erred in finding no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the RTC. The RTC's declaration of ineligibility was contrary to the clear wording of Section 24, Article II of RA 9165 and the provisions of the Probation Law.
• Offense of Conviction Controls: Section 24 of RA 9165 disqualifies from probation "[a]ny person convicted for drug trafficking or pushing under this Act," referring specifically to Section 5 offenses. The Probation Law (PD 968) defines probation as a disposition after conviction and sentence, and its Section 9 lists disqualifications based on the nature of the conviction meted out. What is essential is not the offense charged but the offense to which the accused is ultimately found guilty.
• Legal Consequences of Plea Bargaining: Upon acceptance of a plea bargain, the accused is actually found guilty of the lesser offense subject of the plea. Regardless of the original charge, the judgment is for the lesser offense, and the penalty, accessory penalties, and other consequences under the law, including eligibility for probation and parole, are based on such lesser offense. Since Pascua was ultimately convicted of Section 12, not Section 5, his case was effectively removed from the coverage of Section 24 of RA 9165.
• Interpretation of A.M. No. 18-03-16-SC: The remark in A.M. No. 18-03-16-SC regarding probation disqualification for Section 5 offenses should be regarded merely as a recognition and reminder of the general rule in Section 24 of RA 9165, not as an extension of the disqualification to those convicted of lesser offenses after plea bargaining.
• Limited Effect of Ruling: The ruling does not per se make Pascua eligible for probation but merely deletes the RTC's pronouncement of ineligibility, allowing him to file an application for probation. The grant or denial thereof lies in the sound discretion of the RTC after due consideration of the criteria in Section 8 of the Probation Law.

• Determination of Probation Eligibility — Eligibility for probation is determined by the offense of which the accused is ultimately convicted, not the offense originally charged in the information. The disqualification under Section 24 of RA 9165 applies only to those convicted of drug trafficking or pushing under Section 5 of the same Act, not to those convicted of lesser offenses under Section 12 pursuant to a plea bargain.
• Effect of Plea Bargaining on Conviction — Plea bargaining is a process whereby the accused and prosecution work out a mutually satisfactory disposition subject to court approval, usually involving the defendant's pleading guilty to a lesser offense in return for a lighter sentence. Upon acceptance, the accused is deemed convicted of the lesser offense, and all legal consequences, including the penalty and eligibility for probation, flow from that lesser offense, effectively superseding the original charge.

• "It is clear from both Section 24, Article II of RA 9165 and the provisions of the Probation Law that in applying for probation, what is essential is not the offense charged but the offense to which the accused is ultimately found guilty of."
• "Thus, regardless of what the original charge was in the Information, the judgment would be for the lesser offense to which the accused pled guilty. This means that the penalty to be meted out, as well as all the attendant accessory penalties, and other consequences under the law, including eligibility for probation and parole, would be based on such lesser offense."

• Estipona, Jr. v. Lobrigo, 816 Phil. 789 (2017) — Declared Section 23 of RA 9165 (prohibiting plea bargaining in drugs cases) unconstitutional for contravening the rule-making authority of the Supreme Court; provided basis for the issuance of A.M. No. 18-03-16-SC.
• Daan v. Sandiganbayan, 573 Phil. 368 (2008) — Defined plea bargaining as a process whereby the accused and prosecution work out a mutually satisfactory disposition subject to court approval.
• University of Santo Tomas (UST) v. Samahang Manggagawa ng UST, 809 Phil. 212 (2017) — Defined grave abuse of discretion as a capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment done in a despotic manner.

• Section 24, Article II, Republic Act No. 9165 (Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002) — Provides that any person convicted for drug trafficking or pushing under Section 5 of the Act, regardless of the penalty imposed, cannot avail of the privilege granted by the Probation Law.
• Section 23, Article II, Republic Act No. 9165 — Original provision expressly disallowing plea bargaining in drugs cases; declared unconstitutional in Estipona, Jr. v. Lobrigo.
• A.M. No. 18-03-16-SC (Adoption of the Plea Bargaining Framework in Drugs Cases) — Enumerates violations of RA 9165 subject to plea bargaining and provides in its "Remarks" column that probation is not allowed for illegal drug trafficking or pushing under Section 5 in relation to Section 24 of RA 9165.
• Presidential Decree No. 968 (Probation Law of 1976), as amended by Republic Act No. 10707 — Section 3(a) defines probation as a disposition under which a defendant, after conviction and sentence, is released subject to conditions; Section 8 provides criteria for placing an offender on probation; Section 9 lists disqualified offenders based on the nature of convictions.

• Hernando, J.
• Delos Santos, J.

(Inting, J. and Baltazar-Padilla, J. were on leave)