THE Supreme Court (SC) has ruled that in drug-related cases, prosecutors must raise all their opposition when an accused offers to plead guilty to a lesser offense, adding that their failure to raise any objections will be considered a waiver of such act.
The updated guideline on plea bargaining in drug cases was contained in a decision promulgated on January 28, 2025 where the Court en banc, through Associate Justice Dapar Dimaampao, reinstated the guilty verdict issued by Branch 30 of the Dumaguete City Regional Trial Court against Rodulfo Ferrarin Aquino for illegal possession of drug paraphernalia in violation of Republic Act 9165, or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.
Records of the case showed that Aquino was charged in Dumaguete City for selling and possessing methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu.
During the trial of the case, he asked the trial court that he be allowed to plead guilty to the lesser crime of 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 charge, saying it violated the rules of the Department of Justice.
However, the RTC allowed Aquino’s plea and convicted him of the lesser crime, as it held that the requirement of consent on the part of the prosecutor and the offended party is not a mechanism to countermand the discretionary power of the court to grant or approve the plea deal.
The prosecution appealed the ruling to the Court of Appeals, which annulled the RTC’s judgment, ruling that the plea bargain requires the prosecution’s consent.
The SC disagreed with the CA, reiterating the guidelines in the landmark case of People v Montierro where it held that 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 rules, provided the plea follows the SC’s official plea bargaining framework.
However, the High Court 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.
The en banc said that 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, he submitted his plea before the prosecution could present its evidence, leaving the RTC with no opportunity to make a determination as to the strength of the evidence, which the SC said was critical in determining whether or not to grant the proposal for plea bargaining.
Moreover, the RTC made no determination as to whether Aquino 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.
In similar cases, the SC sent the case back to the RTC. However, it observed that this only delayed the resolution of 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, it said these objections shall be considered waived.
In view of its rule-making power, the SC also issued additional guidelines supplementary to those set forth in the Montierro ruling, for the guidance of the Bench, the Bar, and the public.
These includes the following: 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 the case at hand; and 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 the case at hand.
Applying these rules, the SC reinstated the lower court’s decision convicting Aquino of the lesser offense of illegal possession of drug paraphernalia and sentenced him to up to four years in prison and to pay P60,000 in penalty.
