people vs. reafor

 

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

Vs.

EDWIN REAFOR y COMPRADO

G.R. No. 247575 November 16, 2020

PERLAS-BERNABE, S.A.J,

Facts:

On January 21, 2017, respondent Edwin Reafor y Comprado was charged before the Regional Trial Court of Naga City, Branch 24 (R TC) of the crime of Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs, defined and penalized under Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. (RA) 9165, for allegedly selling two (2) heat-sealed transparent sachets containing a total of 0.149 gram of shabu.

During the presentation of the prosecution's evidence, respondent filed a Motion to Plea Bargain dated July 26, 2018, contending that as per A.M. No. 18-03-16-SC, he may be allowed to plead guilty to a lesser offense of violation of Section 12, Article II of RA 9165, which is punishable only by imprisonment ranging from six (6) months and one (1) day to four (4) years, and a fine ranging from P10,000.00 to P50,000.00. The prosecution opposed the motion, invoking Department of Justice (DOJ) Circular No. 27, which provides, inter alia, that for the crime charged against respondent, the acceptable plea bargain is for violation of Section 11 (3), Article II of RA 9165, punishable by imprisonment ranging from twelve (12) years and one (1) day to twenty (20) years, and a fine ranging from P300,000.00 to P400,000.00.

In an Order dated August 24, 2018, the RTC granted respondent's motion over the opposition of the prosecution. It opined that since it is only the Supreme Court that has the power to promulgate rules of procedure, "A.M. No. 18-03-16-SC dated April 10, 2018, which now forms part of the procedure in all courts, must prevail over the said DOJ Circular No. 27."Thereafter, respondent was re-arraigned and pled guilty to violation of Section 12, Article II of RA 9165 over the objection of the prosecution and was subsequently convicted therefor through a Judgment dated September 6, 2018.

On November 26, 2018, petitioner People of the Philippines, through the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court before the CA, assailing: (a) the RTC Order dated August 24, 2018 granting respondent's Motion to Plea Bargain; (b) the RTC Order dated August 29, 2018 allowing respondent to plead guilty to violation of Section 12, Article II of RA 9165; and ( c) the RTC Judgment dated September 6, 2018 convicting respondent of the aforesaid crime. The OSG argues that the RTC gravely abused its discretion in allowing respondent to undergo plea bargaining without the consent of the prosecution.

Issue:

Whether or not the RTC gravely abused its discretion in granting respondent's motion to plea bargain. (Yes)

Held:

The judgment is void ab initio. The basic requisites of plea bargaining are (a) consent of the offended party (b) consent of the prosecutor, (c) plea of guilty to a lesser offense which is necessarily included in the offense charged, and (d) approval of the court.

Plea bargaining to a lesser offense is governed by Section 2, Rule 116 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, which reads:

Section 2. Plea of guilty to a lesser offense. The accused, with the consent of the offended party and the fiscal, may be allowed by the trial court to plead guilty to a lesser offense, regardless of whether or not it is necessarily included in the crime charged, or is cognizable by a court of lesser jurisdiction than the trial court. No amendment of the complaint or information is necessary.

Plea bargaining in criminal cases is a process whereby the accused and the prosecution work out a mutually satisfactory disposition of the case subject to court approval. It usually involves the defendant pleading guilty to a lesser offense or to only one or some of the counts of a multi-count indictment in return for a lighter sentence than that for the graver charge.

Essentially, it is a give-and-take negotiation wherein both the prosecution and the defense make concessions in order to avoid potential losses. The rules on plea bargaining neither creates nor takes away a right; basic rights are infringed by trying him rather than accepting a plea of guilty; the prosecutor need not do so if he prefers to go to trial. Under the present Rules, the acceptance of an offer to plead guilty is not a demandable right but depends on the consent of the offended party and the prosecutor, which is a condition precedent to a valid plea of guilty to a lesser offense that is necessarily included in the offense charged. The reason for this is that the prosecutor has full control of the prosecution of criminal actions; his duty is to always prosecute the proper offense, not any lesser or graver one, based on what the evidence on hand can sustain.

 

Digest by: Joseph P. Vallecer

Subject: Constitutional law 2