People of the Philippines vs. Darwin Reyes y Cabornay

A person originally charged with illegal sale of dangerous drugs under Section 5, Article II of RA 9165 but convicted, through plea bargaining, of the lesser offense of illegal possession of drug paraphernalia under Section 12 is eligible to apply for probation; Section 24’s prohibition applies only to those convicted of drug trafficking or pushing under Section 5. Eligibility for probation is determined by the offense to which the accused is ultimately found guilty, not the offense charged in the Information.

The People of the Philippines, through the Office of the Solicitor General, challenged the Court of Appeals’ ruling allowing Darwin Reyes y Cabornay to apply for probation after he pleaded guilty to a lesser offense under RA 9165. The governing statutes are Sections 5, 11, 12, and 24, Article II of RA 9165, the Probation Law or Presidential Decree No. 968, as amended, and the Court’s Plea Bargaining Framework in Drug Cases under A.M. No. 18-03-16-SC. The framework was supplemented by Department of Justice Circular No. 027 and later by Department of Justice Circular No. 018.

On October 23, 2019, in Balanga City, Bataan, two separate Informations were filed against Darwin Reyes y Cabornay under Republic Act No. 9165. In Criminal Case No. 20215, he was charged with violation of Section 11, Article II of RA 9165 for allegedly having in his possession, custody, and control two heat-sealed transparent plastic sachets containing methamphetamine hydrochloride, commonly known as shabu, with a total weight of 0.118 gram. In Criminal Case No. 20216, he was charged with violation of Section 5, Article II of the same law for allegedly selling, distributing, and giving away one heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet containing shabu weighing 0.066 gram. Both offenses were alleged to have been committed on or about October 23, 2019, in Balanga City, Bataan, and within the jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Court.

At arraignment, Reyes pleaded not guilty to both charges. Trial thereafter ensued. During the hearing on November 15, 2019, Reyes moved in open court that he be allowed to plead guilty to a lesser offense in Criminal Case No. 20216, specifically from violation of Section 5 (illegal sale) to Section 12 (illegal possession of drug paraphernalia), Article II of RA 9165. The prosecution objected, arguing that the proposed plea did not fall within the conditions set forth in Department of Justice Circular No. 027.

In an Order dated November 15, 2019, the RTC granted Reyes’s motion to plead guilty to the lesser offense in Criminal Case No. 20216 and convicted him of violation of Section 12, Article II of RA 9165. The RTC sentenced him to an indeterminate penalty of imprisonment ranging from six months and one day as minimum to three years as maximum and to pay a fine of P10,000.00, with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency. It also directed the District Jail Warden to bring Reyes to the Bataan Crime Laboratory for drug testing; if he tested positive, he would be referred for drug dependency testing and rehabilitation for not less than six months, with the rehabilitation period credited to his sentence; if he tested negative, he would be released after serving his sentence unless held for some other lawful cause. The RTC further directed that the period of preventive imprisonment be credited and that the District Jail Warden submit a report. It also declared: “Make it of record that accused is ineligible to apply for probation in this case.”

Reyes moved for reconsideration of the November 15, 2019 Order, particularly the declaration that he was ineligible to apply for probation, but the RTC denied the motion in its Order dated November 26, 2019. On the factual matters material to the Supreme Court’s analysis, the trial court allowed Reyes to enter a plea of guilty to illegal possession of drug paraphernalia under Section 12, Article II of RA 9165 because the amount of drugs involved fell within the allowable quantity provided for by the rules. The trial court also found no grounds to reject the plea bargaining offer, such as that Reyes was a recidivist, a habitual offender, known in the community as a drug addict and a troublemaker, had undergone rehabilitation but had a relapse, or had been charged many times; nor did it find that the evidence of his guilt was strong.

• Validity of Plea Bargain: Petitioner maintained that respondent’s conviction under Section 12, Article II of RA 9165 is void because the plea bargain is not in accordance with the conditions stated in DOJ Circular No. 027.
• Probation Eligibility: Petitioner concluded that because the conviction is void, the Court of Appeals Order directing respondent to apply for probation is erroneous.

• Probation Eligibility: Whether the Court of Appeals erred in ruling that respondent, originally charged with illegal sale under Section 5, Article II of RA 9165 but convicted of the lesser offense of illegal possession of drug paraphernalia under Section 12, is eligible to apply for probation.
• Validity of Conviction: Whether respondent’s conviction under Section 12, Article II of RA 9165 is void because the plea bargain allegedly did not conform to DOJ Circular No. 027.
• Written Motion Requirement: Whether respondent’s oral motion for plea bargaining, instead of a formal written motion, invalidates the plea bargain or bars his application for probation.

• Probation Eligibility: Yes. The Court of Appeals correctly ruled that respondent is eligible to apply for probation. Section 24, Article II of RA 9165 disqualifies only persons convicted of drug trafficking or pushing under Section 5; eligibility is based on the offense ultimately convicted of.
• Validity of Conviction: Valid. The amount of 0.066 gram of shabu falls within the 0.01 to .99 gram range that permits a plea to Section 12 under DOJ Circular No. 018 and A.M. No. 18-03-16-SC; DOJ Circular No. 027 was revoked.
• Written Motion Requirement: Not fatal. The defect is non-jurisdictional and was waived by the prosecution’s failure to timely object; liberality was applied pro hac vice.

• Probation Eligibility: Section 24, Article II of RA 9165 provides that any person convicted for drug trafficking or pushing under Section 5 cannot avail of the benefits of the Probation Law, regardless of the penalty imposed. The RTC convicted respondent of the lesser offense of violation of Section 12, Article II of RA 9165, or illegal possession of drug paraphernalia, after he pleaded guilty in accordance with the Court’s Plea Bargaining Framework in Drug Cases under A.M. No. 18-03-16-SC. In Pascua vs. People, the Court ruled that the prohibition from applying for probation mentioned in A.M. No. 18-03-16-SC does not apply to persons originally charged with violation of Section 5, Article II of RA 9165 but subsequently convicted of a lesser offense by reason of plea bargain. The essential consideration is not the offense charged in the Information but the offense to which the accused is ultimately found guilty. Because respondent was convicted under Section 12, his case was removed from the coverage of Section 24, Article II of RA 9165, and he is entitled to apply for probation. However, the ruling does not, per se, make respondent eligible for probation; it is limited to deleting the RTC’s pronouncement of ineligibility and allowing him to file an application, which remains subject to the trial court’s sound discretion under the Probation Law.
• Validity of Conviction: Petitioner argued that respondent’s conviction is void because the plea bargain did not conform to DOJ Circular No. 027. The Court found this argument unpersuasive. DOJ Circular No. 027 was effectively revoked by DOJ Circular No. 018 dated May 10, 2022. Under DOJ Circular No. 018, where the subject of the illegal sale is 0.01 gram to .99 gram of shabu, the accused may plea to the lesser offense of illegal possession of drug paraphernalia under Section 12, Article II of RA 9165, consistent with the plea bargaining framework in A.M. No. 18-03-16-SC. Because respondent was charged with illegal sale of 0.066 gram of shabu, his plea to the lesser offense of illegal possession of drug paraphernalia is well within the conditions set forth in DOJ Circular No. 018 and A.M. No. 18-03-16-SC. Thus, the validity of respondent’s conviction under Section 12, Article II of RA 9165 for illegal possession of drug paraphernalia is beyond question. The Court also emphasized that plea bargaining in criminal cases is a rule of procedure falling within the Court’s exclusive rule-making power under Section 5(5), Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution, as recognized in Estipona vs. Judge Lobrigo and in the consolidated cases of People vs. Montierro, Baldadera vs. People, and Re: Letter of the Philippine Judges Association.
• Written Motion Requirement: Respondent’s offer for plea bargaining was made through an oral motion in open court during the November 15, 2019 hearing. Under DOJ Circular No. 027, although already revoked by DOJ Circular No. 018, all offers for plea bargaining were required to be initiated in writing by way of a formal motion filed by the accused in court. DOJ Circular No. 018 likewise requires that a plea bargaining proposal be initiated by a formal motion filed by the accused, and the Court’s clarificatory guidelines also require that offers for plea bargaining be initiated in writing by way of a formal written motion filed by the accused in court. Notwithstanding this requirement, the Court applied liberality in view of: (1) the late stage of the proceedings; (2) the failure of the public prosecutor to timely raise the issue before the lower court; (3) the fact that the defect is neither jurisdictional nor fatal to the case; (4) judicial economy and efficiency; and (5) the principle of speedy disposition of cases. The formal defect in the motion was not raised by the prosecution before arraignment. The public prosecutor rejected respondent’s offer only on the ground that, based on DOJ Circular No. 027, the allowable plea bargain for violation of Section 5 is Section 11 and not Section 12; the prosecutor did not oppose the offer on the ground that the motion was not in writing. A non-jurisdictional defect that merely refers to a procedural imperfection may be waived by the failure to seasonably raise it. Thus, for failing to timely raise the formal defect, the prosecution is deemed to have waived any objection based on this ground. The resolution of a motion to allow an accused to enter into a plea bargaining agreement is also subject to the sound discretion of the trial court. The trial court allowed respondent to plead guilty to illegal possession of drug paraphernalia under Section 12 because the amount of drugs involved fell within the allowable quantity provided for by the rules, and it found no grounds to reject the offer, such as that respondent was a recidivist, a habitual offender, known in the community as a drug addict and a troublemaker, had undergone rehabilitation but had a relapse, or had been charged many times, or that the evidence of his guilt was strong. The dispensation with the written requirement was applied pro hac vice, and the bench and bar were reminded that strict compliance with the requirements under the clarifying guidelines for plea bargaining in drug cases is enjoined.

• Probation Eligibility Based on Ultimate Conviction — Under Section 24, Article II of RA 9165, only persons convicted of drug trafficking or pushing under Section 5 are disqualified from availing of the Probation Law. Eligibility for probation is determined by the offense to which the accused is ultimately found guilty, not the offense originally charged in the Information. Thus, a person originally charged with illegal sale under Section 5 but convicted through plea bargaining of the lesser offense of illegal possession of drug paraphernalia under Section 12 may apply for probation. The ruling does not automatically grant probation; the application remains subject to the trial court’s sound discretion under the Probation Law.
• Plea Bargaining in Drug Cases as a Procedural Rule — Plea bargaining in criminal cases is a rule of procedure that falls within the Supreme Court’s exclusive rule-making power under Section 5(5), Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution. The Court’s Plea Bargaining Framework in Drug Cases under A.M. No. 18-03-16-SC governs plea bargaining in drug cases, and DOJ circulars cannot override it. The Court set forth clarificatory 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 which the accused proposes to plead guilty to 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 denies it but is found positive after a drug dependency test, he or she shall undergo treatment and rehabilitation for not less than six months, with the period credited to the penalty and after-care/follow-up program if the penalty is still unserved; if found negative, the accused will be released on time served, otherwise he or she will serve the sentence in jail minus the counselling period at the rehabilitation center.
  • As a rule, plea bargaining requires the mutual agreement of the parties and remains subject to the approval of the court; 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.
  • Even if the prosecution and defense agree to a plea bargain, courts will not automatically approve it; judges must exercise sound discretion, taking into account 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, or has been charged many times; or when the evidence of guilt is strong.
  • Plea bargaining in drugs cases 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 prosecution’s objection if it is based solely on the ground that the accused’s plea bargaining proposal is inconsistent with 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 the prosecution objects due to the circumstances enumerated in the guidelines, the trial court is mandated to hear the objection and rule on the merits; if the objection is meritorious, it shall order continuation of the criminal proceedings.
  • If an accused applies for probation in offenses punishable under RA No. 9165, other than for illegal drug trafficking or pushing under Section 5 in relation to Section 24 thereof, the law on probation shall apply.
  • Waiver of Non-Jurisdictional Procedural Defects — A non-jurisdictional defect that merely refers to a procedural imperfection may be waived by the failure to seasonably raise it. The requirement that a plea bargaining offer be made in a formal written motion is such a procedural defect. The prosecution objected only on the ground that DOJ Circular No. 027 allowed a plea from Section 5 to Section 11, not Section 12, and did not timely raise the lack of a written motion. The prosecution is therefore deemed to have waived any objection based on that ground. The Court applied liberality pro hac vice due to the late stage of the proceedings, the failure to timely raise the issue, the non-jurisdictional and non-fatal nature of the defect, judicial economy and efficiency, and the principle of speedy disposition of cases.
  • Probation Is Not Automatic — A ruling allowing an accused to apply for probation does not itself grant probation. It merely removes the disqualification or ineligibility pronouncement and permits the filing of an application. The trial court retains sound discretion to grant or deny the application after due consideration of the Probation Law.

• "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." — This passage, quoted from Pascua vs. People, states the ratio decidendi for probation eligibility: the ultimate conviction, not the original charge, controls.
• "However, it must be stressed that this ruling does not, per se, make respondent eligible for probation. It is limited to the deletion of the RTC's pronouncement that respondent is ineligible to apply for probation, thereby allowing him to file an application for probation." — This clarifies the limited scope of the relief: the Court did not grant probation but only removed the disqualification and allowed an application subject to judicial discretion.
• "In this regard, the Court underscores that a non-jurisdictional defect that merely refers to a procedural imperfection may be waived by the failure to seasonably raise it." — This is the controlling rule on why the prosecution’s failure to timely object to the oral plea bargaining motion waived the written-motion defect.
• "While the Court takes judicial notice of the efforts of the DOJ to amend DOJ Circular No. 027 to conform to the Court's framework for plea bargaining in drug cases as set forth in A.M. No. 18-03-16-SC, it bears emphasizing that plea bargaining in criminal cases is forthright a rule of procedure that falls within the Court's exclusive rule-making power as provided in Section 5(5), Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution." — This passage defines plea bargaining as a procedural rule within the Supreme Court’s exclusive rule-making power, subordinate to the Court’s framework rather than to DOJ circulars.

• Pascua vs. People, G.R. No. 250578, September 7, 2020 — Controlling precedent. The Court ruled that the prohibition from applying for probation mentioned in A.M. No. 18-03-16-SC does not apply to persons originally charged with violation of Section 5, Article II of RA 9165 but subsequently convicted of a lesser offense by reason of plea bargain; what matters is the offense ultimately found guilty of.
• People vs. Montierro, G.R. No. 254564, July 26, 2022; Baldadera vs. People, G.R. No. 254974, July 26, 2022; Re: Letter of the Philippine Judges Association Expressing its Concern over the Ramifications of the Decisions in G.R. No. 247575 and G.R. No. 250295, A.M. No. 21-07-16-SC, July 26, 2022 — Consolidated cases in which the Court set forth clarificatory guidelines for plea bargaining in drug cases.
• Estipona vs. Judge Lobrigo, 816 Phil. 789 (2017) — Cited in relation to the Supreme Court’s exclusive rule-making power over plea bargaining as a rule of procedure.
• Moreno vs. Kahn, 837 Phil. 337, 344 (2018), citing Heirs of Dr. Mariano Favis, Sr. vs. Gonzales, 724 Phil. 465 (2014) — Cited for the rule that a non-jurisdictional procedural defect may be waived by the failure to seasonably raise it.

• Section 24, Article II, RA 9165 — Non-Applicability of the Probation Law for Drug Traffickers and Pushers. Any person convicted for drug trafficking or pushing under the Act, regardless of the penalty imposed, cannot avail of the privilege granted by the Probation Law or Presidential Decree No. 968, as amended. Applied: respondent was convicted under Section 12, not Section 5, so he is not covered by the prohibition.
• Section 5, Article II, RA 9165 — Sale, Trading, Administration, Dispensation, Delivery, Distribution and Transportation of Dangerous Drugs and/or Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals. Original charge in Criminal Case No. 20216; petitioner argued that the conviction under the lesser offense was void because the plea bargain did not conform to DOJ Circular No. 027.
• Section 11, Article II, RA 9165 — Possession of Dangerous Drugs. Original charge in Criminal Case No. 20215 for two heat-sealed transparent plastic sachets containing shabu with total weight of 0.118 gram.
• Section 12, Article II, RA 9165 — Illegal possession of drug paraphernalia. The lesser offense to which respondent pleaded guilty and was convicted; this conviction removed him from the coverage of Section 24 and made him eligible to apply for probation.
• A.M. No. 18-03-16-SC — The Court’s Plea Bargaining Framework in Drug Cases. It governs plea bargaining in drug cases; the prohibition from applying for probation mentioned therein does not apply to persons originally charged under Section 5 but convicted of a lesser offense by reason of plea bargain.
• DOJ Circular No. 027 — Amended Guidelines on the Plea Bargaining for RA 9165. It required written offers for plea bargaining and, according to the prosecution, allowed a plea from Section 5 to Section 11, not Section 12. It was later revoked by DOJ Circular No. 018.
• DOJ Circular No. 018 — Revised Amended Guidelines on Plea Bargaining for RA 9165 dated May 10, 2022. It allows a plea to the lesser offense of illegal possession of drug paraphernalia under Section 12 where the subject of the illegal sale is 0.01 gram to .99 gram of shabu; respondent’s 0.066 gram falls within this range.
• Section 5(5), Article VIII, 1987 Constitution — The Supreme Court’s rule-making power. Plea bargaining in criminal cases is a rule of procedure falling within this exclusive power, so DOJ circulars cannot override the Court’s plea bargaining framework.
• Probation Law or Presidential Decree No. 968, as amended — Governs probation. Respondent’s application for probation, if filed, remains subject to the trial court’s sound discretion after due consideration of the Probation Law.

Gaerlan, Dimaampao, and Singh, JJ., concur. Caguioa (Chairperson), J., on official leave.