A drug case in Dumaguete has rewritten the national guidelines for plea bargaining by requiring the prosecution to raise all grounds for objections or waive them.
The Supreme Court, in an en banc decision dated Jan. 28 has ruled that in drug cases, Prosecutors must raise all their objections when an accused offers to plead guilty to a lesser crime, and any objections not raised are considered waived, according to a news release on Tuesday.
The Court reinstated the Regional Trial Court ruling that found Rodulfo Ferraren Aquino guilty of illegal possession of drug paraphernalia under Section 12 of Republic Act No. 9165, or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.
The Supreme Court also updated its Clarificatory Guidelines on Plea-Bargaining in Drugs Cases also known as the Montierro guidelines.
Aquino was charged in Dumaguete City for selling and possession of shabu. He asked the RTC to allow him to plead guilty to a lesser crime — illegal possession of drug paraphernalia — for both charges.
The prosecution agreed to the plea bargain for the possession charge but objected to the plea for the drug sale, saying it violated Department of Justice rules.
However, the RTC allowed Aquino’s plea, and convicted him of the lesser crime.
The Court of Appeals annulled the RTC’s judgment, ruling that the plea bargain required the prosecution’s consent.
The Supreme Court disagreed with the Court of Appeals, reiterating the guidelines in the landmark case of People vs. Montierro.
“Under the Montierro ruling, courts may reject the prosecution’s objection to a plea bargain in drug cases if the only reason for the objection is that the plea violates DOJ (Department of Justice) rules, provided the plea follows the SC’s official plea bargaining framework,” it said.
However, the SC also clarified that courts do not have unlimited authority and cannot reject the prosecution’s objection if it is based on valid grounds, such as if the accused is not qualified for plea bargaining, or if the plea does not follow the SC’s approved guidelines.
“Courts must also determine if the accused is a habitual offender or if the evidence of guilt is strong before approving a plea bargain.”
In Aquino’s case, the RTC was unable to evaluate these because Aquino submitted his plea before the prosecution could present its evidence.
In similar cases, the Supreme Court sent the case back to the RTC. However, it was observed that this only delayed the resolution of the cases.
“Thus, any time and effort ‘saved’ by the plea bargaining system is effectively rendered nugatory as the trial court must again reopen the case and receive the prosecution’s evidence. This is undoubtedly anathema to the chief virtues advanced by plea bargaining, that is, speed, economy and finality for the accused, the offended party, the prosecution, and the court,” the SC said.
To prevent delays, the SC applied the Omnibus Motion Rule under the Rules of Court, which requires all available objections to be raised at the first opportunity. Otherwise, these objections shall be considered waived.
The SC issued additional guidelines to supplement those laid down in the Montierro ruling.
If the prosecution objects to a plea bargaining motion but cites only some possible grounds, any other ground not raised is considered waived.
If the prosecution raises several objections, but the trial court addresses only one, the appellate court or the SC shall direct the trial court to resolve the remaining issues based on the Montierro guidelines and this case.
If the records before the appellate court or the SC are incomplete and it is unclear whether either of the above scenarios applies, the trial court shall be directed to rule again on the matter, applying the principles in Montierro and this case.
Applying these rules, the SC reinstated the RTC’s decision convicting Aquino of the lesser crime of illegal possession of drug paraphernalia.
He was sentenced to up to four years in prison and fined P60,000. (PNA)
