Republic of the Philippines Supreme Court Office of the Court Administrator Manila OCA CIRCULAR NO, _ 80-2019 TO : ALL SECOND LEVEL COURTS SUBJECT : MINUTE RESOLUTION DATED 02 APRIL 2019 IN A.M. NO. 18-03-16-SC (RE: LETTER OF ASSOCIATE JUSTICE DIOSDADO M. PERALTA ON THE SUGGESTED PLEA BARGAINING FRAMEWORK SUBMITTED BY THE PHILIPPINE JUDGES ASSOCIATION) For the information, guidance and strict observance of all second level courts, appended herein as Annex “A” is the Minute Resolution dated 02 April 2019 of the Honorable Court En Banc, in A.M. No. 18-03-16-SC (Re: Letter of Associate Justice Diosdado M. Peralta on the Suggested Plea Bargaining Framework Submitted by the Philippine Judges Association). Please take note of the portion of the Resolution in boldface found in pages 8 and 9 30_ May 2019 Ss yWikeey 6st) IDAS P. MARQUEZ burt Administrator eer eeeAnnex “A” Republic of the Philippines Supreme’ Court Baguio Ciy ENBANC NOTICE Sirs/Mesdames;| Please take notice that the Court en bane issued a Resolution dated APRIL 2, 2019, which reads as follows: : “A.M, No. 18-03-16-SC (Re; Letter of Associate Justice Diosdado ‘M. Peralta on' the Suggested Plea Bargaining Framework Submitted by the Philippine Judges Association). -In the Agenda of February 26, 2019, the Court resolyed to note the Letter! dated December 19, 2018 of Atty. Dennis G. Dagohoy, in behalf of his client, Sherwin’P. Felonia, charged with violation of Section 5 of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9165, pending before Branch 15, Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Davao City, denominated as Criminal Case No. 17-03548-CR, for allegedly selling Nalbuphine Hydrochloride, stating, among others, that-this client would have qualified to avail of probation if not for| the fact that under Supreme Court Administrative Circular A.M. No. 118-03-16-SC dated April 10, 2018 (Adoption of the Plea Bargaining Frameivork in Drug Cases), said drug is not mentioned therein, but only shabu and marijuana, ‘Atty. Dagohoy claims that Nalbuphine Hydrochloride is not dangerous per s¢ and not as harmful as shabu and marijuana, He avers that, according to tHe International Journal of Pharmaceutical Sciences and Research, Nalbuphine Hydrochloride is a good analgesic option in a balanced anaesthesia technique as it provides intra-operative and post- operative analgesia and good haemodynamic stability with less side effects. Medically, said drug is primarily used for pain relief, including anaesthesia. Its other medical uses include suppression of diarthea, replacement therapy for opioid use disorder, reversing opioid‘overdose, suppressing cough, and suppressing opioid-induced constipation. That is the reason why under R.A. No. 9165, this particular drug is excluded as dangerous drug but merely added as such upon recommendation. of the Philippine Drug, Enforcement Agency (PDEA). It is only when Nalbuphine Hydrochloride is used indiscriminetely that it will have side effects, necessitating its administration only by a trained medical practitioner. Verily, it is only a regulated drug? fNotice of Resohition +2 A.M. No. 18-03-16-8C° : April 2, 2019 In view of the foregoing, Atty. Dagohoy requests the Court to include Nalbuphine Hydrochloride in A.M. No. 18-03-16-SC dated April 10, 2018, in addition to shabu and marijuana, as it is ironic that his client could not plea bargain, while others who were caught with shabu and marijuana could. He implores that the inclusion of said drug would give his client and those similarly situated, the chance to avail of probation and, thus, start a new life The reasons cited by Atty. Dagohoy to include Nalbuphine Hydrochloride in the coverage of A.M. No. 18-03-16-SC dated April 10, 2018, that may be subject of plea bargaining, like illegal sale of minuscule quantities of shabu and marijuana, fails to persuade. Contrary’ to his claim that -Nalbuphine Hydrochloride is only a regulated drug, Atty. Dagohoy would do well to remember that the inclusion of said drug in the list of dangerous drugs was made upon the initiative of the PDEA and the Department of Health (DOH) after a series of public hearings conducted by the Dangerous Drugs Board (DDB) on February 10, 2006, March 28, 2007 and May 6, 2909," in accordance with Section 93,° Article XI of R.A. No. 9165. ' ae . Dangerous Drugs Board Regulation No. |, Series of 2010, approved on December 16, 2010. + Section 93. Reblassfication, Addition or Removal of Any Drug from the List of Dangerous Dri. ‘The Board shall have the power to reclassify, add to oF remove from the fist of dangerous drugs Proceedings to reclassify, add, or remove a drug or other substance may be initiated by the PDEA, the DOH, or by petition fim any interested party, including the manufacturer of a drug, a medical society or association, a pharmacy association, a public interest group eoneamned with drug abuse, a national or local {eovernment agency, of an individual citizen. When petition is received by he Board, it shall immediately begin its own investigation of the drug. The PDEA also may begin an investigation of a drug at any time based upon the information received from law: enforeement laboratories, national and local law cinforcement and regulaory agencies, or other sources of information. ‘The Board aifkr notice and hearing shall consider the following factors substance proposed tobe reclassified, ade or removed fiqm contol {@) Its actual of relative potential for abuses (b) Scientific evidence ofits pharmacological effect if known; (©) The ata caret seine knowlege repring the dr oF ther sistance; (d) Its history and current pattern of abuse; (6) The scope uration, nd significance of abuses (f Risk to pute healthy and () Whether th substance isan immediate precursor ofa substance already controlled winder this Ae ' The Board shill also take into accord the obligations and commitments to international treaties, conventions and agreentents to which the Philippines isa signatory. | “The Dangerous Drugs Board shall give notice to the general public of the public hearing of the reclassification, addition to oF removal from thelist of any drug by publishing such notice in any newspaper of general circulation rie a week for two (2) weeks. ‘The effect of such reclassification, addition or removal shall be as follows: (@) In case a dingerous drug is reclassified as precursors and essential chemicals, the penalties for the violations 4f this Act involving, the two later categories of drugs shall, incase of conviction, ecliptic uals aura () In case a precirsors and essential chemicals i reclassified as dangerous drug, the penalties for violations of te Act involving precursors and essential chemicals shall, in ease of convieton, be imposed in all pending eriminal prosecutions, (@) In ease ofthe addition of a new drug t-te list-of dangerous drugs and pretursors and essential chemieals, no criminal tiabitity involving the same under this Act shall arise until after de lapse of fifteen (15) days from the last publication of such notice; (@) In case of removal of a drug, from the list-of-dangerous drugs and precursors and esentia chemicals, all persons convieted and/or detained for the use and/or possession of sucha drug shalt respect to enchI ' Notice of Resolution A.M. No. 18-03-16-SC April 2, 2019 The whereas clauses of DDB Regulation No.1, Series of 201 06 explain why Nalbuphine Hydrochloride was included in the list of dangerous drugs. Despite the wide use of said drug as to cure moderate to severe pain, it is found to have serious side effects, requiting its administration only by a trained medical 'practitioner with valid S-2 license. Studies, likewise, show that said drug, when used ot administered indiscriminately, has the capacity to produce dependence and is found to be the 5 most commonly encountered drug abuse by victims seeking treatment and rehabilitation in various rehabilitation centers, per DDB 2009 admission reports.” There have also been numerous reports of abusc-of. said drug in major cities in the country, and its use as an injectable drug, with the attendant practice of needle-sharing, pose a serious pubtie health and social problem, like the spread of HIV-AIDs, malaria and hepatitis.* For proper context, since the enactment of R.A. No. 9165 on July 4, 2002 until the promulgation of Estipona, Jr. v. Lobrigo” on August 15, 2017, any person chatzed under any provision of R.A. No. 9165, regardless of the imposable penalty, are not allowed! to avail of the provision on plea bargaining. Due to the far-reaching effect of Section 23 of R.A. No. 9165 having been declared unconstitutional for being contrary to the rule-making authority of the Supreme Court under Section 5(5), Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution, it vas not immediately clear as to what extent should the sound discretion of the trial court be exercised in terms of plea bargaining. At best, Estipona held: | ‘Tho plea is further addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court, which may allow the accused to plead guilty to a lesser. offense which is hecessarily included in the offense charged. The word may denotes an| exercise of discretion upon the trial court on whether to allow the accused to make such plea. Triaf courts are exhorted to keep in mind that a plea of guilty for a lighter offense than, that actually charged is not supposed to be allowed as a matter of bargaining or compromise for the convenienge of the accused. Plea bargaining is allowed during the arraignment, the pre-trial, ot even up to the point when the prosecution already rested its case, As regards plea bargaining during the pre-trial stage, the trial court's exercise of diseretion should not amount to a grave abuse thereof. x x x! In view of Estipona, the Philippines Judges Association (P./A) submitted the Suggested Plea Bargaining Framework which was deliberated upon and discussed by the Court En Banc on April 3, 2018. bbe automatically releaséd and all pening criminal prosecution involving such » drug wnder this ‘Act shall forthwith be dismissed; and (© The Board shall, within five (5) days from the date of its promulgation submit to Congress a detailed reclassification, addition, or removal-ofany drug, from the list of dangerous drugs, Ie. Hd. | i, ' GR. No. 226679, August 15, 2017, 837 SCRA 168. 9 fdeat 192-193,- Notice of Resolution -4- A.M. No. 18-03-16-8C. April 2, 2019 On April 5, 2018, Associate Justice Diosdado M. Peralta met with the Oflicers of the PIA to discuss the revisions on the plea bargaining framework, which was made simpler and easier to understand, and addressed the concerns raised in the En Banc Agenda of April 3, 2018. On April 6, 2018, a revised pled bargaining framework, which is more simplified, incorporated therein the suggestions of the members of the En Bane. On April 10, 2018, the plea bargaining framework was further deliberated upon and approved with modifications, regarding the exception to probation of offenses involving illegal drug-trafficking or pushing under Scotion 5 in relation to Section 24 of R.A. No. 9165, and clarifying the non- applicability of; plea bargaining in cases where the penalty is life -imprisonment of life imprisonment to death, It bears emphasis that the main reason of the Court in stating in A.M. No. 18-03-16-SC dated April 10, 2018 that “plea bargaining is also not allowed under Section 5 (Sale, Trading, efc. of Dangerous Drugs) involving all other kinds of dangerous drugs, except shabu and marijuana” lies in the diminutive quantity of the dangerous drugs involved. Taking judicial notice of the volume and prevalence of cases involving the said two (2) dangerous drugs, as well as the recommendations of the Officers of the PJA, the Court is of the view that illegal sale of 0.01 gram to 0.99 gram of methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu) is very light enough to be considered as necessarily included in the offense of violation of Section 12 (Possession of Equipment, Instrument, Apparatus and Other Paraphernalia for Dangerous Drugs), while 1.00 gram and above is substantial enough to disallow plea bargaining, The Court holds the same view with respect to illegal sale of 0.01 gram to 9.99 grams of marijuana, which likewise suffices to be deemed necessarily included in the same offense of violation of the same Section 12 of R.A. No. 9165, while 10.00 grams and above is ample enough to disallow plea bargaining, In contrast, despite the various medical use of Nalbuphine Hydrochloride which should only be administered by a trained medical practitioner, the Court cannot see from Atty, Dagohoy’s one-page letter request the compelling reason why said drug is similarly situated with the more ubiquitous shabu and marijuana, and why illegal sale thereof should be included as subject of plea bargaining, Moreover, it is presumptuous for Atty. Dagohoy to claim that his client would be entitled to probation if allowed to plea bargain for illegal sale of dangerdus drugs. As held in Estipona, “a defendant has no constitutional right to plea bargain. No 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 ahd the prosecutor, which is a condition precedent to a validNotice of Resolution -5= AM. No. 18-03-16-SC i April 2, 2019 plea of guilty to a lesser offense that is necessarily included in the offensé charged. ttl Meanwhile, the Court resolves to note the Memorandum? dated March 12, 2019 fiom Chief Presidentiat Legal Counsel and Presidential Spokesperson Secretary Salvador S. Panelo re: List of Drug Cases Where Plea Bargaining Proposals of The Accused Were Approved By The Court Without The Consent and Over The Objection. Of The Prosecution. The Memiorandum of the Office of the Chief Presidential Legal Counsel refers to the Letter'? dated February 28, 2019 of Roxas City Prosecutor Erwin D. Ignacio, addressed. to Secretary of Justice Menardo 1. Guevarra, submitting a List of Drug Cases (as of February 2019) where the “plea bargaining proposals” of the accused were approved by the court over the objection of the prosecution, and the action taken by the Office of the City Prosecutor! (Roxas City) to defend the interest of the State and the People. City Prosecutor Ignacio’s letiar reads: Courts in this jurisdiction tend to prioritize the disposal of (criminal) cases to illegal drug cases via the plea bargaining proposals of the accused over the objection of the Prosecution. (The herein list shows Motions for Reconsidetations of this Office in’sonie tourts were denied on the same late). And, this cannot even be justified by the guidelines for Continuous Trial of Criminal Cases because the same is aimed to address backlogs of ALL CASES ~ long overdue pending casés “crying” for disposition by the courts — and NOT to illegal drugs cases alone, most of which are newly filed. ‘The mode of disposal by the courts of illegal drug cases is probably the reason why most, if not all, of respondents under inquest investigation refuse to sign a “waiver” of the provisions of Article 125, Revised Penal Code, perhaps on the advice of counsel that they will just avail of plea bargaining once the cases are filed in court. Consequently, this Office is always under time pressure to resolve illegal drug cases aforesaid within the reglementary period. This is alarming and a direct affiont to the government's intens campaign against the “menace of illegal drugs” under President Rodrigo Roa Duterte because the courts concerned have, in effect, degraded the penalties provided by R.A. 9165 ~ particularly for violation of Section. 5, Article II thereof — since the accused are allowed to plead guilty to violation of Section 12_only where the penalty is minimal and probationable. Section 5, Article I, of RA. 9165 is. being defanged/reridered toothless and the accused are merely given a “slap-on- the-wrist” by the courts concemed. And, the efforts of the police and the Prosecution Wwill be gone to waste. As of this writing, many of those charged of violation of Section 5, Article IT of R.A, 9165 and whose “Plea Bargaining Proposals” were 8 Ida 190-191.) 8 Raila, pp. 44-45, Fd at't6-a7. |\| Notice of Resolution -6- AM. No. 18-03-16-SC i April 2, 2019 approved by the courts in the attachell list are now applying/preparing, to apply for probation, For your information and appropriate action remedial action i Very truly yours, (Signed) ERWIN D. IGNACIO City Prosecutor! To be surg, the Court takes judieial notice that there are cases pending review where the trial courts declared as unconstitutional and invalid Department of Justice (DOJ) Circular No. 061, dated November 21, 2017 (Re: Guidelines on Plea Bargaining for Republic Act No. 9165 otherwise known as the ‘\Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002") and DOI Circular No. 027 dated June 26, 2018 (Re: Amended Guidelines on Plea Bargaining For Republic Act No. 9165 otherwise known as the “Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs dct of 2002"), and other related issuances, for supposedly being in contravention to or undermining the rule- making power of the Supreme Court...In fact, City Prosecutor Ignacio attached to his letter dated February 28, 2019 the list of drug cases with petitions for certiorari endorsed to the Office of the Prosecutor General for endorsement to) the Office of the Solicitor General. The Court will eventually delvé with the said constitutional issue at the proper time. Meantime, City Prosecutor Ignacio bewails that courts tend to prioritize the disposal of newly-filed illegal drug cases via the plea bargaining proposals of the accused dver the objection of the prosecution, rather than the Jong overdue pending cases “crying” for disposition. Trial courts cannot be blamed for such tendency because Section 90 of R.A. No. 9165 mandates that trial of drug cases shall be finished by the court not later than sixty (60)/days from the date of the filing of the information, and decision on said cases shall be rendered within a period of fifteen (15) days from the date of submission of the case for resolution. In contrast, continuous trial] of regular criminal tases shall in no case exceed one hundred eighty (180) days from the first day of trial, except as otherwise provided by the Court, pursuant to Rule 119 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, which adopted in toro the provisions of the Speedy Trial Act of 1998 or R.A. No. 8493,'5 whereas the Constitution requires three (3) months to decide cases from submission.'® Keeping in mind the reglementary period to heat, try and decide cases — two-and-a-half (2.5) iii i eee AN ACT TO, ENSURE A SPEEDY TRIAL OF ALL CRIMINAL CASES BEFORE THE SANDIGANBAYAN, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT, MUNICIPAL TRIAL. COURT, AND MUNICIPAL CIRCUIT TRIAL COURT, APPROPRIATING FUNDS THEREFOR, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES. 6 Article VIII, SECTION 15. (1) All cases or matters filed after the effectivity of this Constitution inust be decided oF resolved within twenty-four months from date of submission for the Supreme Cour, and, unless reduced by the Supreme Cour, twelve months for all lower collegiate courts, and three months for al other lower cours.i Notice of Resolution -7- AM. No, 18-03-16-$C ' April 2, 2019 month-period to resolve drug eases and-about ten (10) months for regular criminal cases) — it is not difficult to see why trial courts give attention to drug cases which mostly involve poor offenders languishing in overpopulated detention cells. , The Court takes exception tor the claim that allowance of plea bargaining over the objection of the prosecution, “is alarming and a direct affront to the government's intensified campaign against the ‘menace of illegal drugs’ under President Rodrigo Roa Duterte because the courts concerned have, in effect, degraded the penalties provided by R.A. 9165 ~ particularly for violation of Section 5, Article IT thereof — since the accused are allowed to plead guilty to violation of Section 12 only where the penalty {is minimal and probationable. Section 5, Article I, of R.A. 9165 is being defanged/rendered toothless and the accused are merely given a ‘slap-on- the-wrist’ by the courts concerned.And. the efforts of the police and the Prosecution will be gone to waste,” The Court explained in Estipona tHat it is towards the provision of a simplified and inexpensive procedure for the speedy disposition of cases in all courts that the rules on plea bargaining was introduced. Thus: i ' xxx As a way of disposing criminal charges by agreement of the parties, plea bargaining is considered to be an "important," "essential," “highly desirable," and "legitimate" component of the administration of justice, Some of its'salutary effects include: x Xx For a defendant who sees slight possibility of acquittal, the advantages of pleading guilty and limiting the probable penialty are obvious - his exposure is reduced, the correctional proctsses can begin immediately, and the practical burdens of a trial are eliminated. For the State there are also advantages the thore promptly imposed punishment after an admission of guilt! may’ more effectively attain the objectives of Puttishment; and with the avoidance of trial, scarce judicial and prosecutorial resources are conserved for those cases in which there is a substantial issue of the defendant's guilt or in which there is substantial doubt that the State can sustain its bburdlen of proof. (Brady v. United States, 397 U.S, 742, 752 (1970) Disposition of charges after plea discussions x x x leads to prompt and largely final disposition of most criminal cases; it avoids much of the corrosive impact of enforced idleness duricig pretrial confinement for those who are denied release pending trial; it protects the public from those accused Persons who are prone to continue criminal conduct even while on pretrial release; and, by shortening the time between chatige and disposition, it enhances whatever may be the rehabilitative prospeets of the guilty when they are ultimately / imprisoned. (Santobello v. New York, 404 U.S. 257, 261 (1971) "Roto, p. 46, |_ + Notice of Resolution -8- AM. No. 18+ i Apr 16-SC. 2, 2019 The defendant avoids extended pretrial incarceration and the anxieties and uncertainties uf a trial; he gains a speedy disposition of his case, the chance to acknowledge his guilt, and a prompt start in realizing whatever potential there may be for rehabilitation. Judges and prosecutors conserve vital and|scarce resources, The public is protected from the risks posedl by those charged with roriminal offenses who are at large_on bail while awaiting completion of criminal proceedings, (Blackledge v, Allison, 431 US. 63, 71 (1977p As a result of Estipona declaring as unconstitutional the provision of R.A. No. 9165 which prohibits plea bargaining in drug cases, the Court adopted plea bargaining framework in drug cases to initially address the gap created thereby, which is susceptible to abuse and misinterpretation. Concededly a work in progress, the plea bargaining framework was intended to expedite criminal proceedings and declog court dockets, so also as not to affect the other équally-important cases (criminal, civil, commercial, special proceedings and special civil actions) that merit the trial court's limited personnel and logistical resources. Always bearing in mind the declaration of policy’? under R.A. No. 9165, as amended, the Court carefully chose to allow plea bargaining, for instance, in illegal sale of marijuana and shabu in trifling quantities [e.g., 0.01-1.00 gram of shabu and 0.01-9.99 grams of marijuana], becduse these are the offenses that are often committed and that really flood the court dockets, but get dismissed later not because the offenders are inhocent, but because the cases are poorly built-up. With the heavy inflow of drug cases filed before courts, like in Roxas City, Capiz, of which Ignacio is a City Prosecutor, where there are only about six (6) organized RTCs, administration of justice will certainly suffer if the prosecution will insist on full-blown trial of every dangerous drug case. Significantly, plea bargaining is always addressed to the sound discretion of the judge, guided by Court issuances, like A.M. No. 18-03-16- SC dated April 10, 2018. If the objection to the plea bargaining is solely to the effect that it will weaken the drug campaign of the government, then the judges may overrule such objection because they are | Estipona, Jr.» Lobriga, supra note 9, at 188-189, Section 2. Declaration of Policy. — itis the policy of the State to safeguard the integrity ofits territory and the well-being of its citizanry particularly the youth, from the harmful effects of dangerous drugs on their physical and mental well-being, and to defend the same against rets or omissions detrimental to their development and preservation. In view of thp foregoing, the State needs to enhance furiher the efficacy of the law against dangerous drugs, it being one of today's more serious socal ils Toward this end, the government shall pursue an intensive and unrelenting campaign against the trafficking and use of dangerous drugs and other similar substances through an integrated system of planning, implementation and enforcement of antirug, abuse policies, programs, and projects. The overnment shall however aim to achieve a balance inthe national drug control program so that people with legitimate medical needs are not prevented frorn being treated with adequate amounts of appropriate medieations, which include the use of dangerous drugs Teis further declared the policy of the State to provide effective mechanisms oF measures to re- integrate into society individuals who have fallen victims to drug abuse or dangerous drug dependence through sustainable programs of treatment and rehabilitation.| Notice of Resolution Eos A.M. No. 18-03-16. i April 2, 2019 constitutionally bound to settle actual controversies involving rights which are legally demandable and enforceable. Judges must decide cases based on evidence, Iaw and jurisprudence, and they cannot just defer to the policy of another Branch of the government. However, if objections to the plea bargaining are valid and supported by evidence to the effect that the offender is a rescidivist, a habitual offender, or known in the community as a drug addict and a troublemaker, or one who has undergone rehabilitation but had a relapse, or has been charged many times, or when the evidence of guilt-of the charge is strong, courts should not allow plea bargaining, because that will not help keep law and order in |the community and the society. And just because the Prosecution and the defense agree to cinter into a plea bargain, it docs not mean that the courts will approve the same. The judge must still exereise sound discretion in granting or denying plea bargaining, taking into account ‘relevant circumstances, such as the character of the accused, | ! ' City Prosecutor Ignacio further laments that many of those charged with violation of Section 5, Article IT of R.A. No. 9165 and whose “Plea Bargaining Proposals” were approved by the courts, over the objection of the prosecution, are now applying/preparing to apply for probation. This view underestimates the purpose of the Probation Law or Presidential Decree No. 968, as amended by R.A, No. 10707.2° It does not follow that once an offender applies for probation, the same will be granted by the court. In fact, there are strict criteria and exacting conditions for the grant of probation, thus: Section 8. Criteria for Placing an Offender on Probation. In determining whether ar offender may be placed on piobation, the court shall consider all information relative, to the character, antecedents, environment, mental and physical condition of the offender, and available institutional and community resources. Probation shall be denied if the court finds that: (a) the offender is in need of correctional treatment that can be provided most effectively by his commitment to an institution; or (©) there is undue risk that during the period of probation the offender will commit another crime; or (©) probation will depr. the seriousness of the offense committed. Section. 9. Disqualified Offenders. — The benefits of this Decree shall not be extended to those: (a) sentenced to serve a maximum term of imprisonment of more than six (6) years; (b) convicted of any crime against the national securit (©) who have previously been convicted by final judgment of an offense punished by imprisonment of more {han six (6) months and one (1) day and/or a fine of more than one thousand pesos (P1,000.00); (@) who haye been once on probation under the provisions of this Decree; i and\| ' Notice of Resolution =10-" AM. No. 18-03-16-8C April 2, 2019 (©) who are'diready serving sentence at the time the substantive provisions of this Deeree became applicable purspiant to Section 33 hereof. Section 10,| Conditions of Probation. Every probation order issued by the court shall contain conditions requiring that the probationer shall: (a) present himself to the probation officer designated to undertake his supervision at such place as may be specified in the order within seventy- two hours from receipt of said order; (b) report t9| the probation officer at least once a month at such time and place as specified by said officer. : The court may also require the probationer to: (a) cooperaté with a program of supervision; (b) meet hig family responsibilities; (©) devote himself to a specific employment and not to change said employment without the prior written Approval of the probation officer; (@ undergo medical, psychological or psychiatric examination and treatment and! enter and remain in a specified institution, when required for that purpose; (©) pursue a prescribed secular study or vocational training; (0 attend oF reside in a facility established for instruction, recreation or residence of persons on probation; + (g) refrain fiom ing, houses of ill-repute; (b) abstain from drinking intoxicating beverages to excess; (@ permit t9 probation officer or an authorized social worker to visit his home and place or work; @) reside at premises approved by it and not to change his residence without its prior written approval; or (W) satisfy any other condition related to the rehabilitation of the defendant and not unduly restrictive of his liberty or incompatible with his freedom of eonscient City Prosecutor Ignacio may have also overlooked that A.M. No. 18- 03-16-SC dated| April 10, 2018 provides that even if plea bargaining is allowed for illegal sale of 0.01 gram td 0.99 grams of shabu and illegal sale of 0.01 gram ate grams of marijuana, the accused shall still undergo drug dependency test] which may require rehabilitation for a period of not less than six (6) months, aside from the period of probation that may be granted by the court, or tnay serve his or her sentence of not less than six (6) months and one (1) day as the minimum, and 4 years as the maximum,” if probation is denied by the ourt. WHEREFORE, the letter dated December 19, 2018 of Atty. Dennis G. Dagohoy requesting the Court to include the illegal sale of Nalbuphine Hydrochloride as subject of plea bargaining pursuant to A.M. No. 18-03-16- SC dated April |10, 2018 (Adoption of the Plea Bargaining Framework itt Drug Cases), is DENIED for lack merit. * i The Menlorandum dated March 12, 2019 from Chief Presidential Legal Counsel and Presidential Spokesperson Secretary Salvador S. Panelo, ' Penalty for Violation of Section 12, R.A. No.:9165, oF for Mlagal Possession of Pauinmonty Apparatus and Other Poraphermalia for Dangerous Drugs.Notice of Resolution -ll- AM. No. 18-03-16-8C ! April 2, 2019 re: List of Drug Cases Where Plea Bargaining Proposals of The Accused Were Approved By The Court Without The Consent and Over ‘The Objection Of The Prosecution, is NOTED. i Let copies of this Resolution be-furnished the Office of the Chief Presidential Legal Counsel and Presidential Spokesperson, the Office of the Solicitor General, the Office of the Secretary of Justice, the Office of the Prosecutor General, the Public Attorney’s Office, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines and the Office of the Court Administrator, for their guidance and information.” Jardeleza, J., on official business; Reyes, J., Ir., J., on official leave; Hernanto, J., on leave. (adv5) ' Very truly yours, GAR O, Poe Clerk of Court vNotice of Resolution OR, DIOSDADO M. PERALTA (x) Associate Justice | Supreme Court | Court Administrator HON, JOSE MIDAS P. MARQUEZ (x) Deputy Court Administrators HON. RAUL B. VILLANUEVA (x). HON. JENNY LIND R. ALDECOA-DELORINO (x) HON, LEO T, MADRAZO (x) Assistant Court Administrators HON. LILIAN BARRIBAL-CO (x) HON. MARIA REGINA ADORACION FILOMENA M. IGNACIO (x) ‘Supreme Court in FELIXP. REYES (9) || President, Philippine Judges Associaton Regional Trial Court, Branch 272 Marikina City | ATTY. DENNIS G, phar CPA (reg) Suite 202, 2% Floor, JMS Bldg., No, 88 Maya St. Ecoland, Davao City i PROSECUTOR ERIN D. IGNACIO (reg) i Office of the City Prosecutor Roxas City THE DIRECTOR GENERAL. (x) Phiippine Drug Enforcement Agency National Office NIA Northside Rd., Dilinvan Quezon City i | THE SECRETARY (x) | Dangerous Drugs Boatd NIA Northside Ra, Diliman Quezon City THE SECRETARY (x) Department of Health || ‘San Lazaro Compound, Sta Cruz Manila AM. No. 18-03-16-SC) | kat 4/2/19 (URes12) 4/16/19 . AM, No, 18:03-16-56 April 2, 2019 ATTY. SALVADOR S, PANELO (x) Presidential Legal Counsel and Presidential ‘Spokesperson Office of the President Malacatiang Palace 1000 Jose P. Laurel Sr. San Miguel, Manila THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (x) Office ofthe Solicitor General 134 Amotsolo Street Legaspi Village, Makati City THE SECRETARY (x) Department of Justice Manila THE PROSECUTOR GENERAL (x) Department of Justice Manila ATTY. PERSIDA V. RUEDA-ACOSTA (x) Public Attomey's Office 5th Floor DOJ Agencies Bldg. NIA Road, comer East Avenue 1404 Ditman, Quezon City INTEGRATED BAR OF THE PHILIPPINES (x) IBP Building, 15 Dofia Juia Vargas Avenue Orfigas Center, Pasig City f