Estipona v. Lobrigo (G.R. No.

226679; August 15, 2017)

September 10, 2017

CASE DIGEST: SALVADOR A. ESTIPONA, JR., Petitioner, vs. HON.

FRANK E. LOBRIGO, Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court of
Legazpi City, Branch 3, and PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,
Respondents.

FACTS: Estipona was charged with an offense under RA 9165. He wants to

enter into a plea bargaining agreement but Judge Lobrigo did not allow him to
do so because Section 23 specifically prohibits plea bargaining in drugs cases.
Estipona argues that Section 23 is unconstitutional.

ISSUE:

Is Section 23 of RA 9165, which prohibits plea-bargaining in drugs cases,

unconstitutional?

HELD: Yes, Section 23 of RA 9165 is unconstitutional for two reason. First, it

violates the equal protection clause since other criminals (rapists, murderers,
etc.) are allowed to plea bargain but drug offenders are not, considering that
rape and murder are more heinous than drug offenses. Second, it violates the
doctrine of separation of powers by encroaching upon the rule-making power of
the Supreme Court under the constitution. Plea-bargaining is procedural in
nature and it is within the sole prerogative of the Supreme Court.