Republic of the Philippines

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT

11th Judicial Region
Branch 46
Alabel, Sarangani Province

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, CRIMINAL CASE NO. 01708-20

Plaintiff,

-versus- -for-

JOMAR OMAYA OLBENAR Violation of Section 5, Article II,

(Child In Conflict With Law) Republic Act 9165
Accused.
x-------------------------------------x

REPLY TO THE MANIFESTATION/COMMENT

TO THE OFFER TO PLEAD GUILTY TO LESSER OFFENSE

ACCUSED, through counsel from the Public Attorney’s Office,

and unto this Honorable Court, most respectfully states that:

I. FACTS OF THE CASE

1. Herein accused, a child in conflict with the law (CICL) was

charged for the alleged violation of Section 5, Article II of R.A. 9165.
Subsequently, he offered to plead guilty to the lesser offense for
Violation of Section 12, Article II of R.A. 9165, which is punishable by
6 months and 1 day to 4 years and a fine ranging from Php10,000.00
to Php50,000.00;

2. However, the Plaintiff objected to the Offer of the

accused to plead guilty to a lesser offense and counter-proposed for
the accused to plead guilty to Violation of Section 11 (3), Article II of
R.A. 9165 with an imposable penalty within the range of 12 years
and 1 day to 20 years and, a fine of P300,000.00 to P400,000.00.;

3. As a requirement for his Offer to Plead Guilty to a Lesser

Offense, accused also moved to undergo Drug Test and Drug
Dependency Examination. Herein accused was found negative for the
use of Methamphetamine and Tetrahydrocannabinol. With regards to

Page 1 of 11
his Drug Dependency Examination Result, herein accused was
recommended to undergo out-patient rehabilitation for six months;

4. In view of the offer of the accused to plead guilty to a

lesser offense, the Honorable Court ordered the Plaintiff to file a
supplemental comment or opposition and for the accused to file a
Reply to the said comment or opposition;

5. On 16 September 2020, herein accused through counsel

received the Plaintiff’s Manifestation/Comment to the Offer to Plead
Guilty to Lesser Offense;

6. In its Comment, the plaintiff reiterated its objection to the

offer of the accused to plead guilty to the lesser offense of Section
12, Article II of R.A. 9165. Furthermore, the Plaintiff advanced that
the requisite consent of the Prosecutor and the Offended Party to
such Offer is mandatory. In support to its argument, the Plaintiff
cited DOJ Circular No. 27, Sec 2, Rule 116 of the Rules on Criminal
Procedure and the case of Sayre v. Xenos, G.R. No. 244413/G.R. No.
244415-16, February 18, 2020;

6. In accordance with the Order of the Honorable Court, the

accused was given ten (10) days within which to file his Reply to the
supplemental comment or opposition of the Plaintiff to his offer to
plead guilty to a lesser crime. Hence, this Reply is file on time;

II. ARGUMENTS AND DISCUSSIONS

7. Accused through Counsel is most respectfully inviting the

attention of the Plaintiff and the Honorable Court to consider the
propriety and validity of its offer to plead guilty to a lesser offense of
Violation of Section 12, Article II of R.A. 9165 on the following legal
basis:

A. The requisite consent from the prosecution

and private offended party is not a mechanism to
countermand the discretionary power granted to the
Honorable Court to grant or deny the accused’s proposed
plea bargaining;

The case of Crespo v. Mogul1 remains to be a doctrine

of stare decisis. In the said case, the Supreme Court made

1
G.R. No. L-53373, June 30, 1987

Page 2 of 11
 it clear that once a complaint or information is filed in
Court any disposition of the cases as its dismissal or the
conviction or the acquittal of the accused rests in the
sound discretion of the Court. The Court is the best and
the sole Judge on what to do with the case before it. The
determination of the case is within its exclusive
jurisdiction and competence;

B. Plea bargaining is addressed to the sound

discretion of the Honorable Court. In OCA Circular No.
80-201, the Supreme Court En banc in a minute resolution
ruled that:

“Hence, if the objection to the plea

bargaining is solely to the effect that at will
weaken the drug campaign of the government,
then the judges may overrule such objection
because they are constitutionally bound to settle
actual controversies involving rights which are
legally demandable and enforceable. Judges must
decide cases based on evidence, law and
jurisprudence, and they cannot just defer to the
policy of another Branch of the government.”

C. In accordance with the view of the Supreme

Court En Banc in OCA Circular No. 80-201, herein
accused should be allowed to proceed with his offer to
plea bargain despite the objection of the plaintiff since he
is neither a recidivist, nor a habitual offender, and there is
no record to show that herein accused is 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;

d. The grant of the accused’s offer to plead guilty

to a lesser offense under A.M. 18-03-16 SC does not
amount to grave abuse of discretion on the part of the
Honorable Court.

A. The requisite consent from the

prosecution and private offended party
is not a mechanism to countermand the
discretionary power granted to the
Honorable Court to grant or deny the
accused’s proposed plea bargaining;
Page 3 of 11
 The case of Crespo v. Mogul
remains to be a doctrine of stare
decisis. In the said case, the Supreme
Court made it clear that once a
complaint or information is filed in Court
any disposition of the cases as its
dismissal or the conviction or the
acquittal of the accused rests in the
sound discretion of the Court. The Court
is the best and the sole Judge on what
to do with the case before it. The
determination of the case is within its
exclusive jurisdiction and competence;

8. Section 5 (5), Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution reads:

“Section 5. The Supreme Court shall have the

following powers:

-xxx-

(5) Promulgate rules concerning the protection and

enforcement of constitutional rights, pleading, practice,
and procedure in all courts, the admission to the practice
of law, the Integrated Bar, and legal assistance to the
underprivileged. Such rules shall provide a simplified
and inexpensive procedure for the speedy disposition of
cases, shall be uniform for all courts of the same grade,
and shall not diminish, increase, or modify substantive
rights. Rules of procedure of special courts and quasi-
judicial bodies shall remain effective unless disapproved
by the Supreme Court.

-xxx-

9. In Echegaray v. Secretary of Justice2, the Supreme Court

elucidated that:

“It should be stressed that the power to promulgate

rules of pleading, practice and procedure was granted by
our Constitutions to this Court to enhance its
independence, for in the words of Justice Isagani Cruz

2
361 Phil. 73, 88 (1999)

Page 4 of 11
 "without independence and integrity, courts will lose that
popular trust so essential to the maintenance of their vigor as
champions of justice."

10. Herein accused respectfully opines that the standing legal

framework is that, plea bargaining in drug cases is a rule of
procedure. The executive branch and even the legislature, cannot
take away from the Supreme Court this inherent power to prescribe
rules of procedure. Under this power, the Supreme Court may
promulgate rules of procedure to adapt to the needs of the present
situation;

11. The present situation is that Courts nowadays are facing

severe clogging of drug-related cases involving trifling quantities. The
reality is that most of the accused are poor offenders who are
languishing in overpopulated detention cells;

12. Also, Trial Courts are now heavily burdened not only with
the trial of drug cases and the trial of regular criminal cases, but also
with other equally important cases, such as civil, commercial, special
proceedings and special civil actions;

13. By rule, Section 90 of Ra 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 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;

14. On the other hand, trial of regular criminal cases 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
toto the provisions of the Speedy Trial Act of 1998 or RA No. 8493,
whereas the Constitution requires three (3) months to decide cases
from submission;

15. Hence, in order to address this concern, the Supreme

Court in Estipona v. Lobrigo3 introduced a simplified and inexpensive
procedure for the speedy disposition of drug related cases in all
courts. Thus:

3
G .R. No. 226679, August 15, 2017

Page 5 of 11
 “By the same token, 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. 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 x x For a defendant who sees slight possibility of

acquittal, the advantages of pleading guilty and limiting
the probable penalty are obvious - his exposure is
reduced, the correctional processes can begin
immediately, and the practical burdens of a trial are
eliminated. For the State there are also advantages - the
more promptly imposed punishment after an admission
of guilt may more effectively attain the objectives of
punishment; 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 burden 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 during 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 charge and
disposition, it enhances whatever may be the
rehabilitative prospects of the guilty when they are
ultimately imprisoned. (Santobello v. New York, 404 U.S.
257, 261 [1971])

The defendant avoids extended pretrial

incarceration and the anxieties and uncertainties of a trial;
he gains a speedy disposition of his case, the chance to

Page 6 of 11
 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 posed by those charged
with criminal offenses who are at large on bail while
awaiting completion of criminal proceedings. (Blackledge
v. Allison, 431 U.S. 63, 71 [1977])

B. Plea bargaining is addressed to

the sound discretion of the Honorable
Court;

C. In accordance with the view of

the Supreme Court En Banc in OCA
Circular No. 80-201, herein accused
should be allowed to proceed with his
offer to plea bargain despite the
objection of the plaintiff since he is
neither a recidivist, nor a habitual
offender, and there is no record to show
that herein accused is 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;

17. In OCA Circular No. 80-201, the Supreme Court En banc

in a minute resolution ruled that:

“Significantly, plea bargaining is always addressed

to the sound discretion of the judge, guided by Court
issuances, like A.M. No. 18 O3-16-SC dated April 10, 2018.
If the objection to the plea bargaining is solely to the
effect that at will weaken the drug campaign of the
government, then the judges may overrule such
objection because they are constitutionally bound to
settle actual controversies involving rights which are
legally demandable and enforceable. Judges must
decide cases based on evidence, law and jurisprudence,

Page 7 of 11
 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 recidivist, 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 enter into a plea
bargain, it does not mean that the courts wilt approve the
same. The judge must still exercise sound discretion in
granting or denying plea bargaining, taking into account
relevant circumstances, such as the character of the
accused.”

18. In this case, the objection of the Plaintiff on the Offer of

the accused to plead guilty to the lesser offense for violation of
Section 12, Article II of R.A. 9165 is heavily based on the intensified
campaign of the government against illegal drugs. Hence, the same
objection may be overruled by the Honorable Court in accordance
with OCA Circular No. 80-201;

19. Under OCA Circular No. 80-201, the Supreme Court En

Banc elucidated that there are only six instances when the Honorable
Court may not allow plea bargaining under A.M. 18-03-16 SC, to wit:

a. When the accused is a recidivist;

b. When the accused is a habitual offender;

c. When the accused is known in the community as a

drug addict and a troublemaker;

d. When the accused has undergone rehabilitation but

had a relapse;

e. When the accused has been charged many times;

and

f. When the evidence of guilt of the charge is strong;

Page 8 of 11
 20. None of the circumstances mentioned in OCA Circular No.
80-201 for the disallowance of the accused’s offer to plea bargain
under A.M. 18-03-16 SC were mentioned in the Comment and
Opposition of the Plaintiff. Hence, the Offer of the accused to plead
guilty to a lesser offense under Section 12, Article II, of R.A. 9165 is
warranted;

d. The grant of the accused’s offer to

plead guilty to a lesser offense under
A.M. 18-03-16 SC does not amount to
grave abuse of discretion on the part of
the Honorable Court.

21. In Marcelo G- Ganaden, Oscar B. Mina, Jose M. Bautista

and Ernesto H. Narciso, Jr. V. The Honorable Court of Appeals,
National Transmission Commission (TRANSCO), Alipio Nool, Fermin
P. Lanag, Sr., Eusebio B. Collado, Jose S. Teiano, Necimio A. Abuzo.
Eliseo P. Martinez and Perfecto Lazaro ,4 the Supreme Court defined
Grave abuse of discretion as, to wit:

"Grave abuse of discretion is defined as capricious

or whimsical exercise of judgment as is equivalent to lack
of jurisdiction. The abuse of discretion must be patent and
gross as to amount to an evasion of a positive duty or a
virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law, or to
act at all in contemplation of law, as where the power is
exercised in an arbitrary and despotic manner by reason
of passion and hostility."

22. Hypothetically, if the Honorable Court grants the Offer of

the accused to plead guilty under A.M. 18-03-16 SC, the same will
not amount to grave abuse of discretion since the same would be an
exercise of its sound discretion under the law;

23. To illustrate, the Supreme Court merely resolved to NOTE

the Memorandum dated March 12, 2019 from Chief Presidential Legal
Counsel and Presidential Spokesperson Secretary Salvador S. Panelo
4
G.R. Nos. 170500 & 170510-11, June 1, 2011

Page 9 of 11
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;

24. But what does the term "NOTED” in the aforequoted

circular imply? The term 'noted' means that the Court has merely
taken cognizance of the existence of an act or declaration,
without exercising a judicious deliberation or rendering a
decision on the matter - it does not imply agreement or
approval;5

25. Thus, in merely noting Secretary Panelo's Memorandum

where Prosecutor Ignacio's concern Re: Grant of Motions to Plea
Bargain without the Prosecution's Consent was raised, the Supreme
Court, in effect, did not find such concern meritorious or
deserving its consideration. Otherwise, the Supreme Court
would have struck down the RTC's grant of said motions or
admonish them in granting the same on either ground of
want of authority, or, in excess exercise of discretion;6

26. The case of Sayre v. Xenos G.R. No. 244413/ G.R. No.
244415-16, 18 February 2020, merely declares that Judge Xenos did
not commit grave abuse of discretion in not granting the Offer of the
accused to plead guilty under A.M. 18-03-16 SC, that is from
Violation of Section 5, Article II of R.A. 9165 to Violation of Section
12, Article II of R.A. 9165. However, the Supreme Court did not in
any way expressly declare that the reverse applies or that a grant of
an Offer of to plead guilty under A.M. 18-03-16 SC is tantamount
grave abuse of discretion;

27. As for the accused in this case, he respectfully submits

that the Supreme Court did not expressly abandon its previous view
in OCA Circular No. 80-201 that an objection based solely on the drug
campaign of the government or objections other than those
considered valid and supported by evidence, such as recidivism and
habitual delinquency, may be overruled by the Courts because the
latter are constitutionally bound to settle actual controversies
involving rights which are legally demandable and enforceable.

5
En Banc. In Re: Supreme Court Resolution dated 28 April 2003 in G.R. Nos. 145817 and 145822, A.C. No.
6332, April 17, 2012, citing En Banc. Manuel S. Sebastian v. Atty. Emily A. Bajar, A.C. No. 3731, September
7, 2007.
6
CA-G.R. CEB SP. NOS. 12161, 12164, 12169, 12170, 12174, 12225, 12227, 12228, 12229, 122235,
122237, 122238, 12241, 12251, 12271, 12376, 12405, 12460, & 12467 CONSOLIDATED DECISION.

Page 10 of 11
 III. P R A Y E R

WHEREFORE, on the basis of the foregoing, it is most

respectfully prayed that the offer of the accused to plead guilty to a
lesser offense of Violation of Section 12, Article II of R.A. 9165 BE
GIVEN DUE COURSE.

Alabel, Sarangani Province, 25 September 2020.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

PUBLIC ATTORNEY’S OFFICE

Department of Justice
Sarangani District Office
Alabel, Sarangani Province

NESTONI M. SENARILLOS
Public Attorney I
Roll of Attorney No. 67653; 25-May-2017
IBP No. 107058 dated 06 January 2020
MCLE Compliance No. VI-0030394
PTR exempt under Section 139 (d) of R.A. 7160
nestonisenarillos@gmail.com
09568159541
IBP Soc-Gen Chapter

Copy furnished:

PROS. URBANO T. MANTE JR. Received by:______________

Counsel for the Plaintiff Date received: 25 September
Office of the Provincial Prosecutor 2020
Alabel, Sarangani Province

Page 11 of 11