Tresvalles vs. People

A trial court does not commit grave abuse of discretion when it allows a plea bargain conforming to the Court-issued Plea Bargaining Framework in Drugs Cases over a prosecution objection based solely on a contrary DOJ internal guideline, but it must first determine the Montierro matters: whether 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, and whether the evidence of guilt is strong.

Alvero and Sorabelle Aporta were co-accused in a dangerous drugs case, but the present petition concerns Alvero’s plea bargaining. The statutory backdrop is R.A. No. 9165, under which Alvero was originally charged with illegal sale under Section 5, Article II, while the prosecution and the courts disputed the acceptable plea under DOJ Department Circular No. 027 and the Court-issued Plea Bargaining Framework in Drugs Cases under A.M. No. 18-03-16-SC.

On August 11, 2016, an Information charged Erwin Alvero y Tresvalles and Sorabelle Aporta y Arandez alias “Mandra” with violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 for the illegal sale of methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu with a total weight of 0.1459 grams. During arraignment, Alvero pleaded “not guilty.”

During the presentation of the prosecution’s evidence and following the ruling in Estipona vs. Lobrigo, Alvero filed a Proposal for Plea Bargaining dated November 9, 2018, praying that the RTC accept his proposal and allow him to plead guilty to violation of Section 12, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 in accordance with A.M. No. 18-03-16-SC, the Plea Bargaining Framework in Drugs Cases. The prosecution filed a Comment/Objection dated November 12, 2018, arguing that under Department Circular No. 027 of the DOJ, the acceptable plea for violation of Section 5, Article II is Section 11, paragraph 3; thus, Alvero’s Proposal was not acceptable. The prosecution added that Alvero was also being charged under a theory of conspiracy under Section 26, Article II, and that Department Circular No. 027 allows no plea bargain in such cases. It finally claimed that it had already commenced the presentation of its evidence and that its evidence thus far—consisting of the testimonies of the forensic chemist, the investigator, the poseur buyer, the team leader, the backup, and the barangay official—was sufficient to convict the accused.

During the hearing on September 10, 2019, the RTC resolved to grant the Proposal over the prosecution’s objection. Alvero was re-arraigned with the downgraded crime of violation of Section 12, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 and pleaded guilty to the offense. In its Decision dated September 10, 2019, the RTC invoked the Plea Bargaining Framework in Drugs Cases and Estipona as basis for allowing the plea bargain. It found Alvero and Aporta guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Section 12, Article II, sentenced Alvero to imprisonment of six months and one day to three years and a fine of ₱10,000.00, credited his detention, and ordered his release because he had fully served the maximum sentence, subject to enrollment at the DOH Treatment and Rehabilitation Center, Brgy. Rumbang, Pototan, Iloilo for not less than three months of drug counseling. The RTC also ordered the confiscated sachets and paraphernalia turned over to the PDEA Region VI, Iloilo City for proper disposal, and the buy-bust money turned over to the national treasury. The RTC denied the prosecution’s Motion for Reconsideration dated September 17, 2019 in its Order dated September 27, 2019.

The OSG, representing the People of the Philippines, filed a Petition for Certiorari dated November 18, 2019 under Rule 65 before the CA, alleging that the RTC acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction when it issued the RTC Decision and RTC Order allowing the plea bargain; the OSG asserted that the consent of the prosecution is essential for a valid plea bargain. The CA granted the Petition, concluded that the consent of the prosecution is essential in plea bargaining, and held that the RTC erred in allowing a plea bargain where the crime of illegal possession of drug paraphernalia is considered an offense necessarily included in the crime of illegal sale of dangerous drugs; according to the CA, the crime necessarily included in illegal sale should be illegal possession of dangerous drugs. The CA ruled that the RTC should have disapproved the Proposal and continued with the trial, and that its error amounted to grave abuse of discretion; it nullified the RTC Decision and Order and ordered the RTC to continue the proceedings in Criminal Case Nos. C-292-16, C-294-16, and C-295-16 and decide the cases with dispatch. Alvero filed a Motion for Reconsideration dated April 5, 2021, which the CA denied in its Resolution dated November 16, 2021.

Alvero, represented by the Public Attorney’s Office, then filed the present Petition for Review on Certiorari before the SC. The RTC Decision and Order do not show that the RTC made any findings on whether Alvero 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 on whether the evidence of guilt is strong.

• Grave Abuse of Discretion / Plea Bargaining: Petitioner argued that the RTC did not act with grave abuse of discretion when it allowed the plea bargain over the objection of the prosecution; that trial courts exercise discretion in granting or denying a motion for plea bargaining and the RTC merely exercised this discretion when it accepted the Proposal; and that this view is consistent with recent jurisprudence and the Plea Bargaining Framework in Drugs Cases.

• Prosecution Consent: Respondent, through the OSG, asserted that the consent of the prosecution is essential for there to be a valid plea bargain.
• Grave Abuse of Discretion: Respondent alleged that the RTC acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction when it issued the RTC Decision and RTC Order allowing the plea bargain.

• Grave Abuse of Discretion / Plea Bargaining: Whether the RTC acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction when it allowed Alvero to plea bargain over the prosecution’s objection.

• Grave Abuse of Discretion / Plea Bargaining: No. The RTC did not commit grave abuse of discretion when it allowed the plea bargain over the prosecution’s objection, because the Proposal conformed to the Court’s Plea Bargaining Framework and the objection was based on DOJ Department Circular No. 027; the case is nonetheless remanded for the Montierro findings.

• Grave Abuse of Discretion / Plea Bargaining: The SC began with the Rule 65 standard. A Rule 65 Petition imposes a high bar and is an extraordinary remedy available only when the act assailed is tainted with grave abuse. Grave abuse of discretion “denotes capricious, arbitrary[,] and whimsical exercise of power. The abuse of discretion must be patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of positive duty or to a virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law, as not to act at all in contemplation of law, or where the power is exercised in an arbitrary and despotic manner by reason of passion or hostility.” A special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 is intended to correct errors of jurisdiction, not mere errors of law. Tested against this standard, the SC found that the RTC Decision and Order allowing Alvero to enter into a plea bargain were not tainted by grave abuse.

The SC applied People vs. Montierro, where the Court En Banc ruled that the Executive’s exclusive prerogative begins and ends with matters involving purely prosecutorial discretion—who to prosecute, what case to prosecute, and how the case would be pursued based on the evidence. The prosecution has freedom and authority to determine whether to charge a person, what Information to file, and how to prosecute the case, but it has no control over how the court would decide the case. This dividing line between prosecutorial prerogatives and judicial discretion is why courts may overrule objections to plea bargaining on certain grounds. If an objection is anchored on what is exclusively a prosecutorial prerogative, it would violate separation of powers for a court to override it. If, however, the objection is based on a supposed internal guideline of the Executive that directly runs counter to a Court issuance promulgated within the exclusive domain of the Judiciary—such as the Plea Bargaining Framework—then it is not a violation, but rather a mere assertion, of the principle of separation of powers. The SC clarified that courts are not given unbridled discretion to overrule any objection: a court has no jurisdiction to overrule an objection if it is grounded on evidence showing that the accused is not qualified, or when the plea does not conform to the Court-issued rule or framework. But 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. Montierro further held that 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.

Here, the Proposal conformed with the Plea Bargaining Framework in Drugs Cases. Alvero was charged with violation of Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 for the sale of shabu with a total weight of 0.1459 grams. The RTC allowed Alvero to plead to the lower offense of violation of Section 12, Article II of R.A. No. 9165. This is consistent with the Plea Bargaining Framework in Drugs Cases, which categorically states that where the crime charged is violation of Section 5, Article II and the quantity of the shabu recovered is from 0.01 gram to 0.99 grams, the acceptable plea bargain is violation of Section 12, Article II or possession of equipment, instrument or apparatus and other paraphernalia for dangerous drugs. When the RTC took the position that the Plea Bargaining Framework in Drugs Cases prevails over the prosecution’s view that DOJ Department Circular No. 027 prohibits plea bargaining in Alvero’s case, the RTC performed its duty to resolve issues brought before it based on the law and the rules.

The SC found no showing that the RTC was motivated by any desire to abuse its power or to prejudice the parties. It also noted that at the time the RTC promulgated the RTC Decision, Alvero had already been in preventive imprisonment for a period beyond the maximum penalty of the downgraded offense under the Proposal; thus, in acting promptly to allow the plea bargain, to re-arraign Alvero, and to promulgate the RTC Decision, the RTC was only ensuring that no person should be deprived of liberty for a period beyond what the law allows. The CA, in concluding that the RTC acted with grave abuse, did not specify which acts of the RTC were arbitrary, capricious, and whimsical. A reading of the CA Decision showed that it merely disagreed with the RTC’s interpretation of the law, particularly its view that it had the power to overrule the prosecution’s objection to the plea bargain. The RTC and the CA differed in their resolution of a question of law that had not yet been settled by the SC at that point; that the RTC’s view was not the same as that of the CA could not of itself amount to grave abuse of discretion. If at all, it was a mere error of judgment.

However, the SC noted that Montierro laid down guidelines to be observed in plea bargaining in drugs cases. In particular, the Montierro guidelines require a court to determine first if (a) 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 (b) the evidence of guilt is strong. Here, the RTC Decision and Order do not show that the RTC made any findings as to these matters. Thus, consistent with Montierro, the case was remanded to the RTC to determine if Alvero may indeed be allowed to plea bargain, and specifically if (a) he 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 (b) the evidence of guilt is strong. The SC also noted that, as stated in the Montierro guidelines, if the prosecution objects to the plea bargain because of the circumstances mentioned above, the RTC is mandated to hear the prosecution’s objection and rule on the merits; if the RTC finds the prosecution’s objection meritorious, it shall order the continuation of the criminal proceedings.

• Grave abuse of discretion — It denotes capricious, arbitrary, and whimsical exercise of power; the abuse must be patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of positive duty or a virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law, or exercise of power in an arbitrary and despotic manner by reason of passion or hostility. A Rule 65 petition is a high bar and corrects errors of jurisdiction, not mere errors of law. The SC applied it by finding no grave abuse because the RTC’s acceptance of the Proposal conformed to the Court’s framework and the CA merely disagreed on a legal question.
• Plea bargaining and separation of powers — The Executive’s prosecutorial discretion covers who to prosecute, what Information to file, and how to pursue the case, but the court controls how it decides the case. A court may overrule a prosecution objection to plea bargaining if the objection is based solely on an Executive internal guideline or policy that contradicts a Court-issued rule such as the Plea Bargaining Framework; it may not override an objection grounded on evidence showing the accused is not qualified or when the plea does not conform to the Court-issued rule or framework. Applied: the RTC could overrule the DOJ Circular No. 027 objection because the Proposal conformed to the Framework.
• Montierro guidelines — Before allowing plea bargaining in drugs cases, the court must determine whether (a) 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 (b) the evidence of guilt is strong. If the prosecution objects on these grounds, the court must hear the objection and rule on the merits; if meritorious, it must order continuation of the criminal proceedings. Applied: the RTC made no such findings, so remand was required.
• Binding effect of En Banc doctrine — The ponente in this case had dissented in Montierro but was bound by the doctrine adopted by the SC En Banc. Applied: the SC applied Montierro despite the ponente’s prior view that prosecution consent is indispensable.

• “The prosecution’s objection may be based on anything under the sun. If an objection is anchored on what is exclusively a prosecutorial prerogative, it would indeed be a violation of the separation of powers for a court to override the prosecutor’s objection.” — This passage frames the separation-of-powers limit: a court may not override an objection grounded on purely prosecutorial prerogative.
• “Thus, a court has no jurisdiction to overrule an objection of the prosecution if the same is grounded on evidence showing that the accused is not qualified therefor, or when the plea does not conform to the Court-issued rule or framework.” — This states the limit on the court’s authority even while recognizing its power to overrule objections based solely on contrary executive guidelines.
• “Here, the Proposal conforms with the Plea Bargaining Framework in Drugs Cases.” — This is the SC’s key application: Alvero’s Section 5 charge involving 0.1459 grams of shabu fell within the framework’s 0.01 to 0.99 gram range for a Section 12 plea.
• “Here, the RTC Decision and Order do not show that the RTC made any findings as to these matters.” — This is the basis for remanding the case for the Montierro findings on evidence of guilt and recidivism.

• People vs. Montierro, G.R. Nos. 254564, 254974, A.M. No. 21-07-16-SC & A.M. No. 18-03-16-SC, July 26, 2022 — Controlling precedent; the SC applied its En Banc ruling that courts may overrule a prosecution objection based solely on a DOJ internal guideline that contradicts the Court’s Plea Bargaining Framework, subject to the Montierro guidelines.
• G & S Transport Corporation vs. Court of Appeals, 432 Phil. 7, 22 (2002) — Cited for the definition of grave abuse of discretion.

• Section 5, Article II, R.A. No. 9165 — Illegal sale of dangerous drugs; Alvero was originally charged under this provision for the sale of 0.1459 grams of shabu.
• Section 12, Article II, R.A. No. 9165 — Possession of equipment, instrument or apparatus and other paraphernalia for dangerous drugs; the offense to which Alvero was allowed to plead guilty and of which he was convicted.
• Section 11, paragraph 3, Article II, R.A. No. 9165 — The plea the prosecution said was acceptable under DOJ Department Circular No. 027; the SC did not adopt it because the Proposal conformed to the Court’s framework.
• Section 26, Article II, R.A. No. 9165 — Conspiracy; the prosecution invoked it to say DOJ Circular No. 027 allowed no plea bargain.
• A.M. No. 18-03-16-SC (Plea Bargaining Framework in Drugs Cases) — Court-issued framework; applied to allow a Section 5 charge involving 0.01 to 0.99 gram of shabu to be pleaded down to Section 12.
• Rule 45, Rules of Court — Alvero’s Petition for Review on Certiorari.
• Rule 65, Rules of Court — The OSG’s Petition for Certiorari before the CA; the SC applied the grave abuse standard and the rule that certiorari corrects errors of jurisdiction, not mere errors of law.
• DOJ Department Circular No. 027 — Executive issuance invoked by the prosecution; an objection based solely on it could be overruled when it contradicted the Court’s Plea Bargaining Framework.
• Constitution — separation of powers and the Judiciary’s exclusive rule-making power — Invoked in Montierro; applied to uphold the RTC’s authority to overrule an objection based solely on a contrary executive guideline.