Ballesteros, Angela Karla C.

17 – 16125
Criminal Procedure 2C
Case Digest: Week 1

G.R. No. 226679

SALVADOR ESTIPONA, JR. y ASUELA, Petitioner,
vs.
HON. FRANK E. LOBRIGO, Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 3, Legazpi City,
Albay, and PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondents.
15 August 2017
PERALTA, J.

FACTS:
Petitioner, Salvador Estipona, Jr., was accused for the violation of Section 11, Article II of R.A. No. 9165,
for unlawfully having in his possession the 0.084 gram of Shabu. Petitioner pleaded not guilty of this
accusation but later on wanted to enter a plea-bargaining deal. However, under Section 23 of R.A. No.
9165, plea-bargaining is prohibited in all drug cases.
Then, he filed a Motion to Allow the Accused to Enter into a Plea Bargaining Agreement, praying to
withdraw his not guilty plea and be allowed to enter a plea of guilty to the lesser offense of violation of
Section 12 of R.A. No. 9165 (for Possession of Drug Paraphernalia). But, the trial court denied his Motion
holding that Section 23 of R.A. No. 9165 expressly prohibits plea-bargaining in drugs cases. Estipona filed
a Motion for Reconsideration which was denied by the trial court. Finally, he filed a Petition before the SC
to declare Sec. 23 of R.A. No. 9165 unconstitutional.

ISSUE:
Whether or not Section 23 of RA 9165 is unconstitutional as it violated upon the power of the Supreme
Court to promulgate rules of procedure.

RULING:
Yes, for being contrary to the rule-making authority of the Supreme Court under Section 5(5), Article VIII
of the 1987 Constitution.
Since, plea bargaining is a rule of procedure, the Supreme Court has the discretion to amend or repeal the
plea bargaining rule, to the exclusion of the legislative and executive branches of government. To reiterate,
the Court's authority to promulgate rules on pleading, practice, and procedure is exclusive and one of the
safeguards of our institutional independence.